Preamble

The House met at half-past two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Hamling, Esquire, Member for Woolwich, West, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Beef Production

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of beef produced in the United Kingdom is produced as a by-product of dairy producers.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): No precise measurement is possible. It is variously estimated that some 60 per cent. of United Kingdom beef and veal production comes from the domestic dairy herd.

Mr. Hicks: Does not that information confirm the need to encourage further expansion of our dairy herd? Furthermore, is the hon. Gentleman aware that we import dairy products equivalent to the milk yield of 2½ million dairy cows? Does he accept that the proposed increase of 0·8p per gallon to milk producers falls well short of the financial incentive required?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the fact that the Government have taken vigorous action to halt the decline in milk production.

Since taking office only a year ago we have increased the guaranteed price by about 32 per cent., and milk producers should benefit from the increased calf prices. We believe that these are good incentives for the future.

Mr. Peter Mills: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that it takes nine months to produce a calf from a cow? Has he forgotten that it is two and a half years before a heifer produces any milk? What is needed in the industry is a long-term plan so that milk can be produced for the consumer and to the benefit of the farmer.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that my right hon. Friend is soon to publish proposals for long-term plans for the industry. The decline in milk production which occurred in 1974 seems to have been checked. In January of this year total sales were virtually at the same level as they were in January of last year, and a preliminary estimate for February indicates that sales were 2 per cent. higher than in 1974.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not the case that the almost dramatic shift from beef to dairy production took place while the Conservative Government were in office and that they neglected the situation for a long time until just before the February election last year?

Mr. Bishosp: My hon. Friend will be aware that the beef régime which my right hon. Friend has managed to secure will help to restore confidence not only in the dairy sector but also in the beef sector.

Farm Costs and Prices

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a comparison of production cost increases in 1974–75 in the United Kingdom with production cost increases in the rest of the EEC, and in addition indicate farm price increases in 1974–75 in the United Kingdom and in the EEC.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The EEC Commission's Annual Report for 1974 on the agricultural situation in the Cornmunity—R / 3408 / 74—contains estimates of changes in the different member States in the prices of inputs and in agricultural producer prices between 1973 and 1974. With permission, I will circulate details in the Official Report.

Mr. Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the costing records in his Ministry for each section of the industry are up-to-date and accurate? On the question of prices, does he understand the difficulties in selling that are placed upon our farmers by the high level of the green pound and the continuance of the present monetary compensation amounts? Will he seek to end, selectively at any rate, the continuance of the transitional period?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the figures. I believe that they are accurate. The figures produced by my Ministry have always been regarded as accurate. On the question of the compensatory amounts, it is necessary to balance the interests of our producers and consumers. The monetary compensatory amounts are providing substantial subsidies on some of our food imports.

Mr. Pym: I have two questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman. What plans has he to readjust and realign the green pound so that the competitive imbalances can be ironed out? Secondly, in view of the scale of the continuing production cost increase, combined with a 30 per cent. fall in real income, how and when does he see the present decline in output being reversed so that we can get back to the course of expansion which he wants, but upon which we are not set as things stand today?

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of the difficulties in connection with the green pound, and I have been having talks on the matter. On the issue of confidence, I believe that what we negotiated in Brussels in relation to the beef deal was right. The Annual Review White Paper set out details of considerable increases, and this is to be followed by a long-term policy document which I hope to publish soon.

Following is the information:


PERCENTAGE CHANGES BETWEEN 1973 AND 1974 IN INPUT PRICES AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER PRICES



Input Prices
Agricultural Producer Prices


Germany
+ 7·0*
-5·*†


France
+27·6
-1·6‡


Italy
+30·9
-17·1


Netherlands
+ 5·1
Not available


Belgium
+10·3
-10·0‡


Luxembourg
+14·0
Not available

Input Prices
Agricultural Producer Prices


Ireland
+37·8
+ 4·1


Denmark
+16·6
Not available


United Kingdom
+26·0†
+ 6·0

Estimates by the EEC. Directorate General for Agriculture.

* Marketing year.
† Including VAT.
‡Excluding VAT.

Source:  SOEC, on the basis of national figures. For the annual indices of input prices: SOEC Agricultural Statistics.

Pigs

Mr. Fry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect the cutback of the pig breeding herd announced last month will have on the level of imports into the United Kingdom in terms of tonnage and value.

Mr. Bishop: It is not possible to make an estimate of the kind asked for. Home production of pigmeat will be lower this year than last, but imports will also be affected by reductions in the breeding herd in those countries which have traditionally supplied our market.

Mr. Fry: Is not the Minister aware that the British pig herd is 23 per cent. below even the level of 1966, when there was also a Labour Government in power? At that time special measures had to be taken. Is it not time that the Minister considered taking special measures this year to increase home pig production?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman must realise, to be fair, that there was a decline in the size of the breeding herd from June 1973 onwards. My right hon. Friend introduced measures last year which brought £29 million to the industry. We have support measures. From 1st August we shall be relying exclusively on the Community pigmeat régime. That provides for measures to be taken to prevent low-price imports from other countries, for subsidies to encourage exports and for internal support measures, such as financial aids to private storage. I am sure that these measures and the general trend will give the confidence that is required.

Mr. Wm. Ross: What representations has the Minister made to Dublin to stop


the smuggling of pigs from Northern Ireland into Eire due to the effect of the green pound?

Mr. Bishop: The answer is that my right hon. Friend and the Ministry are watching the position very closely. We are also in touch with the Agriculture Ministers in Northern Ireland to see what action should be taken if necessary.

Mr. Joplin: Will the hon. Gentleman raise himself above his usual standards of answering questions and apply himself to the fact that over the past year, on the Minister's own figures, the breeding herd has declined by 7·1 per cent. and that there are 37 per cent. fewer gilts in the country than a year previously? Is this not a moment when the Government should be attending to the need for greater food production from our farms? What are they doing to reverse the disastrous trend which has taken place over the past year?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should not ignore the points that I have already made. Substantial help was given to the industry last year by my right hon. Friend. Further, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the market is firming up and that the prospects for pig producers are generally encouraging because the feed price situation is improving.

Mr. Wm. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Cereal Prices

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he estimates that the present guaranteed prices for cereals are adequate to safeguard producers in the coming year; and if he will consider moving direct to EEC guaranteed price levels.

Mr. Peart: The substantial increases in the guaranteed prices for cereals recently announced should provide an adequate safeguard for producers' returns in the coming year, and I see no reason at present to contemplate any further measures.

Mr. Hawkins: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new guarantee prices do not take sufficiently into account the increased prices of fertilisers, fuel, machinery and other matters? Will he not now make an application to the Council of Ministers to go to the end price—that is, the full price of the EEC —so that there is not unfair competition with our farmers?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that we are always watching the transitional period. I am limited in that respect. The hon. Gentleman will remember that coming out of the last review there was a target price for wheat, for example, which was an increase of 9 per cent. For maize there was an increase of 10·5 per cent. and for barley an increase of 9·4 per cent. I believe that this is adequate.

Mr. Jay: But is not this Question a request for cereal prices to be raised even higher and an admission of what is, of course, true namely, that world prices of grain as well as of other foods have now fallen below EEC levels and that the EEC has reimposed import levies on both wheat and maize?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend must realise that producers must have a fair return. We have to recognise that. I believe that there is force in the point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), but I think that what I achieved in Brussels was right. Of course, world prices have created a new situation and livestock producers will benefit.

Forestry

Mr. Cormack: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the acreage of land planted with trees in the winter of 1974–75 compares with recent previous years; and whether he is satisfied with this level of planting.

Mr. Corrie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of land was planted with trees in the winter of 1974–75; and how this compares with the winter of 1973–74.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): In the year ended 31st March 1974 about 112,122


acres were planted by the Forestry Commission and the private sector. The comparable total in the previous year was 117,928 acres. No comparable statistics are available for the present year as the planting season is not yet over.

Mr. Cormack: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a disturbing figure? Does he accept that it has been brought about largely because of the insensitive and unthinking policy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he urge his hon. Friend to take time off from watching the pigs across the border and look into the question of trees, to ensure that proper confidence is returned to the British forestry industry?

Mr. Strang: I presume that the figure which the hon. Gentleman describes as unsatisfactory must be the one for the year ended 31st March 1974. That was some considerable time prior to my right hon. Friend's announcement of his intentions regarding the capital transfer tax. Apparently the hon. Gentleman wants forestry planting to be increased. I must point out to him that there was a sharp decline in the level of planting by the Forestry Commission during his Government's tenure of office.

Mr. Wiggin: Does the Minister accept that there has been a complete lack of confidence in the forestry industry as a result of the introduction of the capital transfer tax? Does he accept that in the forestry and agriculture industries one of the most serious aspects has been the right hon. Gentleman's total lack of interest in the plight of farmers and foresters as a result of the imposition of capital transfer tax?

Mr. Strang: I utterly reject that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the real interests of the forestry industry and the desire of his hon. Friends and himself to maintain forestry as a tax avoidance haven for wealthy landowners and investors.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the House how long he thinks it takes for a tree to grow and how often he thinks he can tax it on the way up?

Mr. Strang: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so ignorant of the important concession that my right hon.

Friend has given to private forestry. In fact, under his concession the trees will not be taxed along with land in the way that the normal capital transfer tax operates. They will be taxed only when they are felled.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply.

Veterinary Service

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many posts in the State veterinary service are vacant at the last convenient date, and if he is satisfied that the numbers are sufficient to undertake all their duties including routine inspections of farming units.

Mr. Peart: On 1st March there were 126 vacancies in the State veterinary service out of a total complement of 698 professional staff. Consequently some of the duties do not receive as high a priority as I would wish.

Miss Fookes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned by the very large proportion of posts unfilled and by the fact that many jobs are left entirely undone and receive no priority at all?

Mr. Peart: I am concerned, but Conservative Members should have expressed their concern by action before I ever became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that what we are doing will remedy the situation which we inherited. I am satisfied that we shall get the necessary veterinary people.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the employment of private practitioners to make up the deficiency in the State veterinary service? Will he consider the idea of maintaining a skeleton staff only to advise him and his top officers and to employ private practitioners to do the greater part of the routine work?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must know that what he is suggesting is completely impracticable. The State veterinary service is a State service. Obviously there is a place in the farming industry for the private veterinary service, but I am directly responsible for the State service.

Beef (Intervention Stocks)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of beef are currently in cold storage (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Common Market countries, as a consequence of intervention buying.

Mr. Bishop: Present stocks of beef held by the United Kingdom Intervention Board are 34·75 tons. According to the latest figures released by the EEC Commission, the total stocks held by the intervention agencies of other member States are just over 300,000 tons.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates the utter lunacy of the common agricultural policy? Does he also agree that the renegotiations have not altered in any way the techniques of import levies or intervention buying, which will remain the key factors in the CAP? Will he give a categorical assurance that Britain will not indulge in intervention buying?

Mr. Bishop: Whatever views one may take on this, the present policy represents a major breakthrough, as my right hon. Friend said at the time, in making sure that we have the option of not going to intervention. I believe that the present arrangements are satisfactory.

Mr. Marten: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in a previous answer his right hon. Friend said that he was watching the transitional period? Does he think that his right hon. Friend knows that I have watched with great interest his own transitional period over the Common Market? Cannot the Minister of State come clean on the question which has been put to him? He did not answer it.

Mr. Bishop: The answer to the question is that the means of support for United Kingdom beef producers this year will be a system of premiums underpinned by intervention buying on a very limited scale. The figures I have given suggest that that is so.

Eggs

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he gave to the National Farmers' Union delegation which came to the House of Commons on 6th March to ask

him to protect British egg producers from unfair competition from subsidised French imports; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has recently met representatives of Great Britain's egg producers.

Mr. Beith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has now had with the French Minister of Agriculture about egg imports.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while the question of French egg imports remains under consideration, whether he will take interim action to protect the domestic egg market.

Mr. Bishop: I am afraid that my reply will be rather lengthy, Mr. Speaker, since I am answering four Questions together.
We have looked very carefully at the case for controlling the imports of eggs into this country in the context of Community legislation and the production position in the United Kingdom. First, the evidence we have so far received does not justify a unilateral embargo. We are seeking more facts from producer organisations in support of their claim that a ban can be justified. Second, we shall also want to discuss with them future prospects for egg production in this country. Third, we have taken action towards obtaining early agreement to prohibit the use in this country of arsenicals in feeding stuffs for laying birds. We would then be able to sell our eggs in the French market where the use of arsenicals is already prohibited. Fourth, we have also arranged talks with the French Government about the detailed implementation of the EEC marketing regulations.
In the last few days the French Government have taken further steps to reduce over-production of eggs. This action could help to restore a balance in the egg market. The EEC Commission has been informed and is examining the details of the arrangements. We are also in continuing contact with the French Government about these new steps. The market has firmed in recent weeks and producers should also be helped by the recent reduction in feed prices.

Mr. Lawson: I welcome that lengthy answer. Is the Minister aware that this is still wholly unsatisfactory for British egg producers, who are suffering serious losses—some are on the verge of bankruptcy—because of the imports of subsidised eggs? Is he also aware that there is considerable evidence that these subsidised French imports are coming in in contravention of Article 46 of the Treaty of Rome and that many of them seem to have been passed off as English eggs in contravention of the EEC labelling regulations? While he is conducting this thorough investigation, would it not be better if he put at least a temporary ban on the importation of French eggs now until he is satisfied that the position has been regularised?

Mr. Bishop: I concede the quantity of my reply but I hope that hon. Members will recognise its quality as well. On the point about labelling and the marketing regulations, regular checks are made at ports to ensure that boxes of eggs imported from other member States and elsewhere are properly labelled and marked. Quality checks take place at ports and other points on the distribution chain, and with one exception our inspectors have found only minor infringements. These are important matters and we are very much involved in the inspections that are made.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are grounds for suspicion that the price of French eggs in this country is below the cost of production? Will he also confirm that fewer French eggs have been imported in the first two months of this year than in the similar period in each of the previous two or three years and that the then Conservative administration were completely unconcerned about it, so that the noise now emanating from the Opposition benches is neither justified nor genuine?

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. I have spent a considerable time on this in negotiations with the Eggs Authority and with the NFU, as has my right hon. Friend. We have been in touch with the position in Brussels. As for an anti-dumping scheme, I believe that the French eggs are not being dumped, according to the available definition. The Eggs Authority itself has also made a recent state-

ment accepting that the evidence on prices which it has collected might not sustain an anti-dumping application.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. Will he accept that there will be bitter disappointment in an industry which is near to despair that discussions with the French Government have not yet taken place and have only just been arranged? Does he not recognise that he could be taking legal proceedings against the French Government in respect of the hidden subsidy in contravention of Article 46 of the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Bishop: We have gone into this thoroughly in regard to the legislation available, and it is not so easy to prove some of the allegations which have been made. Some of the people who have been making these allegations are now considering whether they can justify the action that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that yesterday, in a Written Answer which appears in column 440 of the Official Report, his right hon. Friend showed that the amount of subsidy paid through compensatory amounts for 1974 was no less than £275,000? Can he now tell us what is the estimate for this year? Why are these compensatory amounts paid to French producers in order to reduce the price below production costs in this country?

Mr. Bishop: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the equalisation fund, which covers only about 20 per cent. of production. Producers pay a levy when the market is relatively strong and receive payments when it is relatively weak—a kind of insurance policy. There is nothing in the way it works to prevent producers from seeking the best possible prices from the market. The Eggs Authority has said publicly that it has no evidence which could prove that the fund is contrary to EEC legislation.

Mr. Hastings: Has the Minister heard reports that large consignments of these French eggs are getting in at our ports at weekends when inspection arrangements are far from adequate? Will he look at this aspect?

Mr. Bishop: We are always pleased to look into any allegations made by hon.


Members, but we have made a close check and with one exception there have been only minor infringements. In that one case we sent the eggs back to France and warned about the inspection measures which we would pursue in future.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a rather sad commentary on the two years or so that we have been in the Common Market that even now, despite all the renegotiations and the attempts to make the Common Market and the common agricultural policy flexible, we are still in the ridiculous situation of not being able to keep out French subsidised eggs? Is not the real answer to the problems the one which was described by his right hon. Friend, by himself and by Ministers generally—namely, that there was no future for Britain or for British producers in this country staying in the Common Market? If my hon. Friend has time to reflect on this matter over the weekend, perhaps he will have a look at the anti-Market motion and sign it and get his right hon. Friend to sign it too.

Mr. Bishop: Regardless of whether one is in the Market or not, there are international rules like GATT which have to be obeyed. On the latter point my hon. Friend must draw his own conclusions, but we on this Bench will continue to give the facts, which hon. Members may use as they wish.

Mr. Pym: Although we are glad that the Government are now having discussions with the French Government—albeit perhaps belatedly—what about the evidence which seems to have come to light now that the French Government are making a considerable extra sum available to the poultry industry, which includes eggs? Should not this be pursued urgently? What steps have the Government taken to raise it with the Community? This matter affects intra-Community trade and, therefore, the Commission has a responsibility. What approaches have the Government made in that direction?

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the right on. Gentleman's interest. I am aware of his visit to Brussels on this and other matters. However, M. Lardinois has denied reports that he had said that we could act to stop imports from France. The position

is still being reviewed with the authorities in Europe with which we are concerned and also with M. Lardinois himself.

Glasshouse Industry

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union regarding his decision to discontinue the oil subsidy for the glasshouse sector of horticulture; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent consultations he has had with the NFU about the provisions of aid to the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: Representations have been received from five NFU branches and my right hon. Friend discussed the position of the glasshouse industry with the president and other officeholders of the NFU on 3rd March. It has been made clear that we do not intend to reintroduce the temporary fuel oil subsidy.

Mr. Latham: Why did not the Government continue with this subsidy at least until the end of July, when the new EEC régime comes in, rather than taking this disgraceful action to the advantage of our Dutch competitors?

Mr. Strang: It is wrong to relate the temporary oil subsidy to the plans which are at present being considered by the Commission regarding the long-term future of the industry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that this subsidy, which was very substantial at the time, was a temporary subsidy and that this was made clear all along.

Mr. Newens: Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that figures with which he has provided me through a parliamentary answer and a letter show that EEC glasshouse producers are receiving a subsidy which our growers are not receiving? Does he further agree that in addition to this the Dutch producers get very cheap oil? In these circumstances, is not the failure to prolong the subsidy placing our glasshouse industry in severe jeopardy at a time when we need


the products which will otherwise have to be imported?

Mr. Strang: I certainly recognise the deep concern of my hon. Friend and his glasshouse grower constituents regarding this decision. However, I ask him to bear in mind that the answer to which he referred showed that the level of subsidy paid by the British Government was verb generous compared with that paid by other EEC Governments. Indeed, we started the subsidy before many of the other countries did. Furthermore, some of the other countries have not paid any subsidy and have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the calculations of the NFU, which show that a grower with an 80-tons-per-acre crop of tomatoes needs in 1975 to receive 5p per lb. more for his tomatoes than he did last year simply to cover his extra costs? If he receives that extra 5p per lb., it will be bad for the housewife, and if, as is much more likely, he does not receive it, because of subsidised imports will it not be very serious for many growers?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that imports of oil in 1974 cost Britain over £4,000 million. That is more than four times what imports of oil cost us a couple of years previously. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue, as he did in that supplementary question, for a permanent subsidy to protect growers from the real economic facts of life.

Mr. Fell: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at this matter? We are talking about some of the very small people in the agricultural world, many of whom are in the most serious financial trouble. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a friend to most of us, will really have another look at this matter.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question because it gives me a chance to emphasise that we are anxious to do everything we can to help the glasshouse industry—short of encouraging it not to face the hard economic facts of life. That is why we have the advisory services encouraging growers to invest in energy-saving equipment and why we are doing everything possible to help this industry.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Gentleman is not doing everything.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the many grievances with regard to the workings of the Common Market which have been advanced by Opposition Members who represent constituencies which are mainly agricultural and horticultural, can my hon. Friend explain why they do not unanimously join us in wanting to take Britain out of the Common Market?

Mr. Strang: I accept my right hon. Friend's point to this extent. It seems to me that some hon. Members are complaining because we have taken the decision on the basis of our assessment of the British national interest quite independent of what other member States and other countries are doing.

Mr. Pym: In view of the current competitive disadvantage of British glasshouse owners, have the Government made any estimate of the damage which will be done to this sector of the industry before the new régime comes in in July? Secondly, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an asurance from the Dispatch Box today that the new régime, when it comes in, will be adequate to meet the requirements of glasshouse owners? In other words, can they look forward with hopefulness to a situation in which competition will be fair and they will be able to keep their businesses in a viable situation?

Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between capital investment grants and operating subsidies. It really is a bit much, particularly in view of the new Tory leadership, for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to ask for subsidies to protect the horticulture industry against the increase in the price of oil when they know perfectly well that if the alleged policy of their leader were carried out there would be no subsidies for the glasshouse industry, for fishermen or for the consumer.

Mr. Pym: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my two questions? Has he estimated the damage, and can he be confident about the new régime from July?

Mr. Strang: As far as estimating the damage is concerned, we do not believe that one can talk about damage when


we are helping the industry by capital grants, by advice and by research to adapt itself to the increase in oil prices. Regarding the new régime, I think that we should wait to see whether the British people decide to stay in the Community before we consider that.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list all existing forms of aid at present available to the glasshouse industry in Common Market countries, whether by direct grant, pegged fuel prices, cheap interest rates, refunds of value added tax or in any other way.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will quantify the benefits to EEC producers, by country, of the subsidies for gas and oil that those countries grant for glasshouse heating.

Mr. Strang: It would be impracticable to list in detail all the different forms of assistance available to glasshouse growers in EEC countries, but as far as fuel subsidies are concerned I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on 17th March. However, I have since learned that the Belgian subsidy equivalent to about 1·5p per gallon has been extended until 30th June.

Mr. Hastings: Are not all these subsidies, fuel and otherwise, linked when it comes to competition? Why is it impracticable to list all the advantages which the competitors of our growers are getting? If the hon. Gentleman will not do so, how is he in a position to make the sort of assertion that he did to his hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens)? Why will he not come clean about this business and give some straight answers? Does he not realise that growers in Britain are on a seasonal occupation, particularly tomato growers, and face two alternatives: to cut production or to go out of business? In present circumstances, with our balance of payments as it is, how can it possibly advantage us to force them into such a position? Will the hon. Gentleman again address his mind to the question of degressive aid and the end of June? Will the Government support the proposal for degressive aid or not?

Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman rereads his Question, I think he will understand why it would simply not be practicable to supply the comprehensive information he seeks. However, we have tried very hard to supply all the information that is available regarding the oil subsidy, and that has been incorporated in the reply to my hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the comparisons he will see that our industry comes out relatively favourably. For example, if he looks at the figures for Ireland he will see what growers there got last year and what they are getting in the present six-month period.

Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware of the special difficulties of glasshouse growers in Northern Ireland caused by the close proximity of another source of supply in the South which uses Northern Ireland as an export market? Is he aware that the Eire producers get EEC subsidies and a heating subsidy, which is not paid in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Strang: I remind the hon. Member that we were paying a subsidy between January and June last year of 6p a gallon when the Irish Republic was paying nothing. The Irish Republic started paying a subsidy in the second half of last year and it is continuing the subsidy for the current six months. That subsidy, however, is only 2p a gallon.

New Zealand Lamb

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for taxes on lamb imported from New Zealand.

Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend made the Government's views clear at the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 4th March, that the Community tariff of 20 per cent. ad valorem is unnecessarily high, and we shall wish to seek its elimination, or at least reduction as far as United Kingdom imports are concerned, at the earliest opportune time.

Mr. Moate: I welcome the Government's intention to eliminate or reduce the tax, but does not the fact that the Government increased the tax on 1st January and are maintaining it represent a dishonouring of their election commitments and their manifesto?


Should not the Minister endeavour to button up this item before turning his coat?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the wholesale prices of New Zealand lamb this year started at 28·6p a lb. compared with 33·5p in 1974. By 3rd March the price had fallen to 26·8p a lb.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister in favour of importing more lamb from New Zealand and elsewhere, or does he prefer to increase production from the hills and marginal land of Britain?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member will be aware of the steps taken in respect of the use of grassland and the great encouragement there to help our industry. To date, about half of our consumer requirements have been met by New Zealand imports. I remind the hon. Member of the reply I gave just now that we shall seek the elimination or reduction of the tax on lamb imports into Britain.

Mr. Jay: What is the purpose of the tax?

Mr. Bishop: The purpose of the tax is to protect our own industry in relation to this and other commodities. A reduction of the tax, which I think was the implication of my right hon. Friend's question, is a matter of priorities. We have thought it far more important to modify the common agricultural policy at this stage, particularly the beef régime on which we have had success.

Agricultural Production

Mr. Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest indications he has of the prospects for the livestock industry in the light of the price review and the census for 1974.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the December 1974 agricultural returns for England and Wales, what cutback in production is estimated by his Department.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take action designed to

reverse the trend of falling agricultural production evidenced by recent figures.

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the December 1974 agricultural returns for England and Wales, showing the extent of the cut-back in United Kingdom livestock production in that year, and the steps he intends to take in the light of the returns.

Mr. Peart: Full details were announced last month of the results of the December 1974 agricultural census for England and Wales. Levels of future production will, however, depend on a number of further factors, such as the weather and, for example, levels of milk yield. On 17th February I announced substantial increases in guaranteed prices and in EEC farm support prices, together with a radically improved EEC beef régime.— [Vol. 886, c. 917.]

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that the census to which he referred shows that the dairy herd is almost 5 per cent. down, that AI is at its lowest level in its history and that calf slaughterings are still at a high level?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of those facts, but that decline operated during the period of the Conservative Government. I have tried to arrest it by giving a very good dairy award, and I believe that the new beef régime that we achieved in Europe was a good thing.

Mr. Mills: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is the Minister of Food when he has allowed a severe cutback in home production? Is there not a very real danger that we shall have to supply our consumers with more and more imported food, making the balance of payments problem even worse?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Minister knows that it was his Government—and it was he as well as the Minister—who encouraged farmers to go from dairy to beef, and he knows too that the trend was current when the Conservatives were in power. I believe that I have given confidence through the annual price determinations and by what I achieved in Brussels.

Mr. Molloy: Can my right hon. Friend explain the logic of his replies to previous


Questions on this matter and the fact that from time to time the EEC creates mountains of butter and beef which affect the livestock industry in Britain, these commodities then being sold to nations outside the Common Market at absurdly cheap prices? Is not this appallingly stupid policy by itself sufficient cause for us to consider whether we should remain in this banal organisation?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must know—

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member did not seem to complete his point of order, so the Minister may continue.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must know that on several occasions in Brussels I have condemned this system. That was why I argued that we would not accept a system of permanent intervention as a means of support. That was also why I achieved the variable premium system.

Mr. Morrison: What representations did the Minister make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the introduction of the capital transfer tax? Does he not realise that this has destroyed any incentive to invest, and how on earth will he reverse the trend in production with that tax in existence?

Mr. Peart: That is another question altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the transcript of his interview on Thames Television on 3rd March on ministerial responsibility.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 14th March.
Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how the speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, for which he rebuked the right hon. Gentleman, differed from the speech

by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night and from the speech by himself in Taunton? What on earth is wrong in saying that the trade unions should not welsh on the social contract?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is an offensive phrase in the first place —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."' It has caused considerable offence in Wales, as I heard again last night—[Interruption.] I am not surprised at laughter from a party which cannot win seats in Wales at a General Election. Secondly, the speech made certain assertions—I dealt with these at Question Time a fortnight ago—which did not seem to me to be a complete and fair representation of the position. My own speech in Taunton said exactly what I had said in the House in reply to Questions on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not, as far as I know. make any speech last night. The hon. Member may be referring to short newspaper accounts of a statement that my right hon. Friend made at a party meeting yesterday of which there was no transcript and which I heard. That was certainly quite different from what was said by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more important part of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education was that which congratulated the courageous stand taken by many leading trade unionists in encouraging their members to stand by the social contract?

The Prime Minister: That is something which my right hon. Friends and I have been saying—certainly, in my case, since the TUC Congress last September—and which I repeated at Taunton.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, made in London on 1st March on economic matters, represents Government policy.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech on economic matters of the Secretary of State for Employment in London on 1st March represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on 18th March.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister tell us, therefore, whether expressions like "irresponsible lunacy to ignore the effect of pay rises ", which I understand was used by the Chancellor, are also to be described as economic illiteracy? Perhaps, if the expression may be used without offence, the Prime Minister might scotch some of the rumours that he is a bit soft on pay restraint.

The Prime Minister: I answered the first question a fortnight ago. As to the hon. Gentleman's funny joke, which I shall laugh at for pretty well the rest of the day, I remember seeing it in a letter in the Daily Telegraph or The Guardian two days after my answer.

Mr. George Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the social contract has had some degree of success, generally speaking there has been and is a lack of responsibility towards it? Does he agree that there is need of an urgent review of the social contract to make the position much stronger and much firmer and to make its lines of definition much clearer?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend heard my speech to the trade union group of my hon. Friends a couple of weeks ago. He will remember that on that occasion I said that the social contract had been fully honoured by the Government and that in the light of that we were entitled not merely to ask trade union leaders, who have shown great courage in the matter, to support it, but to ask more of their individual members to rally round those leaders.

Mr. Renton: Has any country whose inflation rate has been more than 20 per cent. ever succeeded in bringing it down without suffering financial disaster first?

The Prime Minister: The forecast for inflation that we had when we came into office produced figures very similar to what has happened. For various reasons, including the necessity to clear up the whole three-day-week mess created by the Conservatives, but for our actions on price control, subsidies and housing the

situation would have been even worse than was forecast a year ago.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members would do better to have the courtesy to listen to speeches by Ministers from the Dispatch. Box and get their political education in that way rather than to rely on the guidelines of abbreviated Press reports?

The Prime Minister: That is possibly very valuable advice to Opposition Members. We all want to assist in their education, but it is inevitably a slow process.

Mr. Peyton: The Prime Minister's revelations of past events are, as ever, fascinating. Will he now apply himself to the future and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)?

The Prime Minister: The answer certainly is that we can and shall bring down the rate of inflation without economic disaster. However, we reject the policies advanced by leading Conservatives who say that it can be done by monetarist means, producing more unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination about the availability and cost of food as between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Prime Minister satisfied by the trend of falling agricultural production, which is continuing and increasing? Is the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection satisfied by it, bearing in mind that it is almost certain to bring about a considerable increase in food prices?

The Prime Minister: When I came into the House a little late today I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dealing with that very question. There can be many arguments—I heard them when I came in about whether the previous Government or the present Government


are responsible. Those are fair arguments across the Floor of the House. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing could do more to help our balance of payments in the short run, as well as help the economy in other ways, than a substantial increase in agricultural production. I ask the House to await my right hon. Friend's White Paper on agriculture after Easter.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's food subsidies policy has worked and that according to a recent Reuters survey the prices of butter, bread, cheese and milk in this country are half what they are in Bonn and Paris? Will he see that we get out of the Market or change the common agricultural policy?

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that the figures I have seen confirm something of what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not draw the same conclusion from them as he does. Certainly the retail food index is about 7p in the pound lower and the retail price index is about 1½ points lower than they would be if we had not introduced food subsidies, to say nothing of changing many other policies of the previous Government.

Mr. Watt: Have the Government recently examined the age structure of British agriculture? Will they note the serious situation which is arising because many farmers and workers are becoming old and the recruitment rate is not sufficient?

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agricultre, Fisheries and Food is well aware of those problems. They go back a long way into history, over successive Governments. The hon. Gentleman will be well advised to await my right hon. Friend's proposals to produce a healthier and more rapidly expanding agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Brussels.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Does that mean that the rumour that the Prime Minister will receive the prize for the best European of the year is not true? If he should go to Brussels, will he go to the European Assembly—

Mr. Hastings: It is a long way to go from Brussels.

Mr. Marten: There is no knowing which way the Prime Minister will go. Will he study the resolution at the European Assembly for direct elections to a European Parliament by 1978 and then tell the House and the country before the referendum, as he represents that part of the Labour Party which is in favour of entry into the Community, what the Labour Party thinks about direct elections to the European Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I said "I have at present no plans to do so, Sir "—and if I had I should not like to go to the hon. Gentleman, if he were a travel agent, to book my ticket, because he would probably put me on a Brussels plane, and after travelling a circuitous route I should have to go down by parachute in Strasbourg to attend the European Assembly. Apart from that difficulty, I have no plans to receive any prizes in the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. With regard to elections to the Assembly, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on Tuesday.

Mr. Hooley: If my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels, will he file formal notice that if we stay in the Common Market we may require revision of the Treaty of Rome, which is what appears to have been implied by his statement earlier this week?

The Prime Minister: I do not need to go to Brussels to say that again, because it was made clear in Brussels by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in relation to the steel situation, that that is what we may require if we cannot get a satisfactory settlement of these problems on the lines followed by other countries, as I hope we can. I also gave contingent notice in Dublin at the Heads of Government meeting that if we cannot get a satisfactory solution to the New Zealand cheese problem revision may be necessary.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about his new doctrine of ministerial responsibility on European affairs, bearing in mind that it is fundamental to our democratic system that Ministers are responsible to Parliament and that he appears to have given them licence on this occasion to disregard the decisions of Parliament? If Ministers are not responsible to the Prime Minister. by dispensation, nor to the Cabinet, because it is partitioned, nor to Parliament, which they agree is sovereign, to whom are they responsible?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well—[ interruption. ] I hope that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) got over his operation successfully. The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that this very special, unique dispensation is available in this very special unique situation, and that Ministers in availing themselves of it are responsible to me. I shall be watching the situation carefully. Ministers are, as always, responsible to Parliament, as the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well. What we shall not have is a situation where Ministers sit there tacitly accepting everything the Government decide and then dissociate themselves from their former Prime Minister when they are no longer in government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 24th March—Second Reading of the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill.

Remaining stages of the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 25th March—debate on foreign affairs.

Motions on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1975, and on the Census Order.

Wednesday 26th March—Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill.

Motions on the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Thursday 27th March—It has been resolved that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon, and adjourn at 5 p.m. until Monday 7th April.

Mrs. Thatcher: First, is there any news yet of the date of the Budget? Secondly, on his present plans for the referendum legislation, does the Leader of the House still expect to hold the referendum in about the third week in June? Thirdly, as the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill is a Bill of constitutional importance, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot give the date of the Budget, except that it will be after Easter. I hope very much that we can get the referendum legislation through the House in order to have the referendum as early as possible in June.
I do not intend to take the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill on the Floor of the House. I shall recommend to the House that it should be taken in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Whitehead: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will find parliamentary time next week for a debate or a statement on the First Report of the Select Committee considering the case of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)?

Mr. Short: The report has just been issued; I received my copy before lunch. The House will want time to study it before we talk about debating it.

Mr. Brittan: As those who wish to take an active part in the referendum campaign will wish to plan speaking engagements for that campaign, will the Leader of the House say for how long the House will rise during the referendum campaign?

Mr. Short: I have not said that the House will rise during the campaign. I said that I would consider it, and I am looking at the matter. I realise that there is a problem.

Mr. Kelley: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to discuss the motion


on the Order Paper in my name and that of several of my hon. Friends which has received widespread support throughout the country? It asks for a public inquiry into the purchasing practices of the National Coal Board. We believe that this is an urgent necessity, in view of certain revelations which have been made and which have not been satisfactorily answered by the National Coal Board.
[That this House believes that it would be in the national interest, having regard to statements that have been made by former employees of the National Coal Board, that a public inquiry should be wade into the purchasing practices of the National Coal Board since the date of inception, and that any person should be free to give evidence in that inquiry. without let or hinderance.]

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised this subject last week, when I said that I would refer it to my right hon. Friend. I have done so, and no doubt he will contact hon. Members.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Does the Leader of the House recall that on Monday, in response to a Private Notice Question, the Home Secretary gave reasons why he could not administratively prevent Mr. Shelepin coming here? While not necessarily agreeing with them, some of us understood those reasons. Since then it has been drawn to the Home Secretary's notice that his predecessor in 1970, when faced with a difficulty which he regarded as similar, sent for the inviting body and exerted considerable pressure on it to withdraw the invitation. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House do his best to get the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a further statement next week and say whether he is prepared to follow the precedent of his predecessor?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot do that, but I will see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Lipton: Is it the Government's intention to make the referendum day a bank holiday, because in most Common Market countries polling day for any purpose is a public holiday?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, we have no plans to do that, but in the context of elections generally it is worth considering whether a General Election should be a public holiday.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will ask questions about next week's business.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is great disappointment on both sides of the House that he has not yet announced the date of the debate on the Scottish Development Agency? Is he aware that the latest unemployment figures published today bring home the urgent necessity of arranging for a debate on this subject at an early date?

Mr. Short: The Bill has not yet been produced. When it is produced we shall have a Second Reading debate on its general principles. Our unemployment figures are still the lowest in the Western world.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) reported to the House before Christmas and that before Christmas he indicated that we should debate the EEC budget for 1975? Will my right hon. Friend find time next week or soon after Easter for those important debates?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that they cannot be next week. I will bear the matter in mind and arrange for debates on those subjects at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a firm assurance that before the House rises for Easter the Secretary of State for Social Services will make a statement about the situation at Westminster Hospital? Does he not agree that this is a scandalous, outrageous dispute and that the House cannot rise for Easter with patients in danger, as they are, without knowing where the Government stand on this matter?

Mr. Short: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I will certainly tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what he has said.

Mr. Wellbeloved: May I press my right hon. Friend for a debate next week


before the House rises on the Report of Select Committee which has considered the case of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)? Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread disquiet because this man continues to draw his pay as a Member of Parliament, that he drew all his allowances up until March this year before he left the country and that he has declared his intention not to come back? We want to debate this report, express an opinion on it and get rid of the man.

Mr. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I think that we are all concerned about this matter. It would be useful if we all considered the report during the Easter Recess and discussed it after Easter to see where we go from there.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: How soon can we expect to have the full services of the House properly restored?

Mr. Short: In view of the difficulties we have encountered during the past fortnight, I think we have done remarkably well in spite of the inconveniences. I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have put up with the inconveniences. I hope very much that the strikers will return to work and that when the House reassembles we shall be free of this trouble.

Mr. Sydney Irving: As the Bill to deal with the construction industry "lump "is not to be before the House next week, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will be laid before the House in the first week after Easter?

Mr. Short: I cannot do that, but it will be put before the House and I hope it will receive Royal Assent during this Session of Parliament.

Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House next week to make a statement about the working of the licensing system for the export of live animals for slaughter, because there is grave concern about what is happening overseas and an urgent statement is required?

Mr. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman has shown concern about this

subject for many years. I will discuss what he said with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider making a statement in the House next week on the position of international civil servants who comment on the referendum? Those international civil servants have already had easy access to publicly-owned institutions such as the BBC. Shall we be able to discuss the rôle of international civil servants in the referendum campaign, because many people believe that their status behoves them to be silent?

Mr. Short: I know that there are feelings in the House about this. It would be an appropriate subject to raise during the Second Reading debate on the Referendum Bill, which will be held shortly after the House reassembles after Easter.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider next week asking his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to produce a White Paper on the Government's intentions with regard to the Maxwell Stamp Report on the cab trade, which is long overdue thanks to the lethargy, I fear, of the Home Office under the last Government and this one?

Mr. Short: I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Cryer: Would my right hon. Friend care to extend the debate on Wednesday dealing with the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner so as to include the recent pay awards to top civil servants and judges? Would he also, by way of an interesting contrast, extend the debate so as to include wage awards to industrial civil servants like the strikers whose dispute is affecting the services of the House at the moment?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot do that. This is an affirmative motion which is required before these two salaries can he brought into line with what has previously been decided about the salaries of top civil servants.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Noting that there is to be no debate on the Gardiner Report next week, may I ask the Leader of the


House whether it will be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or both, who will next week make a statement about the transfer of the Price sisters from Durham to Armagh Gaol, which, from my own observations, I know to be an insecure prison?

Mr. Short: I will certainly tell the Home Secretary what the hon. Gentleman has said. As for the point about Gardiner I would have thought that the Northern Ireland Committee would be an appropriate place for such a debate. If it were agreeable there could be an early debate.

Mr. Hooley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for providing time next week for a foreign affairs debate? May I ask him to look at Early-Day Motion No. 250?
[That this House is dismayed to see that central government expenditure in each year from 1974 to 1979 on motorways and trunk roads will exceed the combined central government subsidies to all forms of public transport by rail bus and waterway (Cmnd. 5897 table 2.6 pp. 68-59) and calls for a Select Committee of the House to investigate as a matter of urgency the economic and environmental consequences of this policy.]
Is he aware that this suggests that a Select Committee be appointed to look at the balance of public expenditure as between motorways and public transport? Will he take action to set up such a Select Committee?

Mr. Short: I cannot promise to set up a Select Committee but I will certainly bear in mind the important point which my hon. Friend has made. This is a major preoccupation of the Government at present.

Mr. Peyton: May I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Opposition have done nothing to dislodge or in any way weaken the determination of the Government not to let the House of Commons be stopped by the current industrial dispute? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be welcome if he would make a statement on the position next week, because this is a serious matter and not one to be taken lightly?
Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that a statement is made next week on the unhappy dispute at Westminster Hospital?
Thirdly, may we have a debate on the rather sombre defence White Paper as early as possible after Easter?

Mr. Short: There will certainly be a debate on the defence White Paper, somewhere about the beginning of May. I have already replied to a question about the Westminster Hospital. I shall be happy to make a statement next week on the industrial dispute affecting the House if the strike is still continuing. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is meeting the Joint Consultative Council tomorrow. We shall see what emerges from that.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British aviation industry, particularly the civil side, is facing a likely collapse during 1976? Will he talk to the responsible Ministers to see whether something can be done to save Hawker Siddeley Aviation, where many thousands of jobs are involved?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend knows that we have some important proposals dealing with the aviation industry to bring forward very shortly.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to alter next week's business so as to include a debate on social justice, which would enable the House to debate the pay and allowances paid to the troops during the Government's dirty business in Glasgow?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I am afraid that it is not possible to alter the business for next week. We have a day of Adjournment debates. I promised a debate on foreign affairs. The remaining two days are occupied with important legislative proposals from the Government's programme.

Mr. Ward: While accepting the difficulties of my right hon. Friend in fitting in the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill before Easter, may I ask whether he will agree that it is most unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that he should have to remain


in suspended animation, as he has done since January? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to provide a debate on this Bill at least before the end of April?

Mr. Short: There will be a debate on this as soon as I can arange it. Once more I apologise for leaving my hon. Friend suspended in this way.

Mr. Tebbit: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill, one of major constitutional importance, to take the Clay Cross criminals off the hook at public expense should be debated in Committee on the Floor of the House instead of being taken away and hidden like the obscenity it is upstairs?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. There will be a whole day to debate the general principle of the Bill —

Mr. Tebbit: Or lack of it.

Mr. Short: —next week. The Secretary of State for the Environment will open the debate and the Attorney-General will reply. I have rearranged the debate at the request of the Opposition so that my right hon. and learned Friend could be back from Strasbourg to take part. After the Second Reading the Bill will go into Committee, on which both sides of the House will be represented.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Many Opposition Members wish to speak in the following debates. The more time we take now the less time there will be for those debates.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That, at this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Coleman.]

3.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have previously drawn the attention of the Leader of the House and of the House to this type of motion which, although not entirely without precedent in the 1970

Parliament, is now becoming an almost standard feature of our proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me, arising out of my previous observations, that he would ensure that this matter was considered at the next opportunity by the Select Committee on Procedure.
So important is this innovation that I suggest that it is inappropriate that there be further examples until the House has had the benefit of the considered views of that Select Committee. If we examine the Prime Minister's motion we see that the effect of it is to ensure that the first of the two debates to which we look forward is automatically brought to a close at seven o'clock. From time immemorial the House has succeeded with general satisfaction in combining by agreement two subjects in a normal single day's debate.
All hon. Members, new or less new, will be aware that there are many occasions when it is intimated that the first debate is likely to come to a close around seven o'clock and then the House will move on to the second subject. In all those circumstances not only has there been a flexibility as regards the precise length of time for which the first debate lasted, but it has always been open to the House, as it always should be, subject to Standing Orders, to be the agency that decides whether a debate should be brought to an end.

Mr. Cyril Smith: We are deciding that now.

Mr. Powell: We are not, and I will explain to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) what is the difference between this motion and the proper way in which the House traditionally decides whether it wishes a debate to be brought to a close.
The House cannot decide that question, nor can the Chair decide whether it is a question proper to be settled by the House, except at the relevant time. It is only when the debate is actually in progress that the House can rationally come to a conclusion whether it ought to be terminated or allowed to continue. That is entirely rational. It is possible suddenly in a debate for a new aspect of the question to arise which requires further examination there and then. The right hon. Gentleman winding up the


debate at the Dispatch Box, or seeking to wind up such a debate, might at that stage make a statement putting a new complexion on the subject which the House had been debating. The House, unless it is stopped by its own Standing Orders, ought then to have the opportunity of deciding in the proper way, by the closure, if the motion is accepted by the Chair, being voted on by the House.
Apart from the closure and the fact that that is the proper and logical way in which, subject to our Standing Orders, we should bring debates to a conclusion, if necessary, there is a well understood atmosphere in the House which conveys to hon. Members on both sides whether it is desired that a certain topic should be pursued a little further. The usual channels are, commonly, remarkably efficient in serving the requirements of the House in this respect and in maintaining the necessary communication between the two sides. All that will be brought to an end if it becomes normal—as it is becoming normal—for motions to be placed for decision at 3.30 p.m. which in effect lay down a rigid timetable for the business of that day.
I submit that if this sort of innovation is made, and if we are to have a daily timetable motion on days of this kind—for that is what it amounts to—we should do this deliberately, as the will of the House, expressed after the Select Committee on Procedure has decided the matter.
I suggest that there is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue this motion. If it is the pleasure of the House that today's debate should occupy today's sitting, that will be no more difficult to do than it has proved on hundreds of occasions in the past. Let the right hon. Gentleman therefore not press this motion but be content to see what emerges from the proper consideration of the matter by the Select Committee.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I rise to support the approach which he has made. I agree with him. I think it is invidious for the establishment, the power behind the throne, or the advisers to the Whips Office, to arrange matters in this way. By all means let there be agree-

ment between the usual channels and their advisers, but please let us not adopt that attitude regularly. The habit of the usual channels agreeing to switch business in the knowledge that the rights of the back benchers will be precluded, such as will happen with this motion, is becoming too regular.
The Chair always gives time in which back benchers can air their views. The Chair, always within the rules and Standing Orders, goes out of its way to help back benchers. It is the duty of the Chair, as far as possible, knowing that the rights of back benchers must be protected, to try to assist the passage of Government business without depreciating the rights of back benchers.
This motion is debatable. Three or four hon. Members on either side might wish to participate. The Chair is then in a difficulty because it obviously wishes to allow reasonable discussion. It also wishes to proceed with public business. Therefore it might well be that at a given hour, be it five o'clock or six o'clock, the closure motion could legitimately be put on an important motion which is opposed by hon. Members of all parties, on both sides of the House, who might wish to take part in the discussion. All hon. Members agree that you, Mr. Speaker, are brilliant in the Chair. I do not know how you manage to allocate one hour to up to seven Front Bench speakers and probably six back benchers.
This motion is serious. The Government, realising that we deal with public business late on Thursdays because of the discussion earlier in the afternoon of next week's business, know some of the motions will not be reached for some time. However, the closure of a limited debate on an important subject is unfair to back benchers.
There is no urgency about this motion. Indeed, the motion says that the provision is to be backdated to January 1975. There is no need to take it before Easter. If the matter were discussed after Easter, the Government could arrange a day when more hon. Members were likely to be present to support or oppose the motion. I urge the Government to say there is no need to press the motion.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who is at present representing the Liberal Party so adequately, will realise


that we should then be able to debate the textile industry earlier in the day. We should be able to return after Easter and discuss the other motion, knowing that no one would be upset, and that the desires and objectives of the leaders of the major political parties would not be frustrated.
If the right hon. Member for Down, South agrees to oppose this motion with a vote, I shall support him. I am even prepared to act as teller in the absence of other tellers.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Bob Crger: There is much in what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says. He is right. On the other hand, on this occasion I do not think that it should be forgotten that this allocation of time was made partly as a result of pressure by back bench Members to ensure that the textile industry should be debated. To those hon. Members representing textile constituencies, which are facing unemployment and short-time working, it is essential that the House be seen to debate that issue. There is a danger that a long argument on the motion regarding financial assistance to Opposition parties could lead to a reduction of the time available for the textiles debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I suggested that we should proceed straight away with the textile debate and allow an extra two or three hours. It is important that textiles should be discussed. The other matter is not urgent and there is no necessity for it to be discussed now.

Mr. Cryer: I do not dispute that. It is a good arrangement. But my hon. Friend's criticism of the usual channels was less than fair because it was only at the insistence of the back benchers that the usual channels and the Leader of the House yielded—for which we are most grateful—to the pressure from back benchers, to hold a debate about an industry which has served the country well but the subject of which does not occupy a great deal of time on the Floor of the House. I think that that should be recognised.
I endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that we should

leave the matter of finance for Opposition parties till another time, though I suspect that we are now immersed so deeply in matters of procedure that it will be difficult to extricate ourselves. However, if we can, and if it means more time for the debate on the textile industry, I shall be happy with that solution.

4.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said, we have a very important debate to follow after seven o'clock. I was anxious to give as much time as possible to that debate. Indeed, I was pressed for it. I withdrew the motion on financial assistance on the last occasion that it was before the House at the request of a number of hon. Members who felt that there was not sufficient time to debate it.
I agreed to find a half day for a debate on textiles. I have found a half day, plus two hours. I did not want that time eroded by another debate. Therefore, I think that the seven o'clock motion is justified today.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that a new point could arise just before seven o'clock and that there would not be time to pursue it and to debate it. A new point could arise just before ten o'clock in a normal debate or in any other debate which had to finish by a certain time—

Mr. Powell: What is suddenly different about half-days in the House that they have to be safeguarded by this kind of motion?

Mr. Short: I felt that there was a possibility of the second debate being eroded today, as I said, and that it was right to put down this motion, which we discussed through the normal channels.
I was commenting on the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South about a new point arising just before seven o'clock, and I was saying that a similar point could arise just before ten o'clock.
A great deal of our business is dealt with in short debates. The whole of our secondary legislation is considered in 1½ hour debates after ten o'clock. The EEC debates follow the same pattern. They are in limited time after ten o'clock.
What we are doing is not an innovation. It has been done frequently. But if there is evidence of concern about what the right hon. Member for Down, South described as "this growing practice "—I do not agree that it is growing, although a motion of this kind has appeared on the Order Paper once or twice this Session—I shall be willing, as I promised previously, to ask the Select Committee on Procedure to look at this point when it has finished its present remit.

We have two very important debates today. The second one is of special importance to a great many hon. Members. I hope that we shall agree now to reach a decision on this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties not later than Seven o'clock.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OPPOSITION PARTIES

4.4 p.m.

The Lord President of the Counciland Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,

1. That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that as from 1st January 1975 provision shall be made for financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:


5
2. That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:



£500 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £150,000:


10
3. That it shall be a condition of qualification for such assistance that a party must either have at least two Members elected to the House as members of that party at the preceding General Election, or that it has one such Member and received at least 150,000 votes at that Election:



4. That any party wishing to claim such assistance shall make to the Accounting Officer of the House a statement of the facts on which this claim is based:


15
5. That the cost of this provision shall be borne on the House of Commons Vote:



6. That parties making claims under this provision shall he required to certify to the Accounting Officer of the House that the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business:


20
7. That claims under these arrangements shall be made quarterly, and that the annual maxima shall be applicable to claims made in respect of expenses incurred during any one calendar year.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Short: I shall speak very briefly in order to allow as much time as possible for other hon. Members.
As the House will be aware, this motion is in accordance with the Government's undertakings in the Queen's Speech to consider the provision of financial assistance to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their parliamentary duties. I originally outlined the Government's proposals in my statement to the House on 19th December.
As that statement indicated, the proposals now before the House form part of a larger programme to consider ways of strengthening our parliamentary institutions.
As part of this initiative, a Select Committee of the House is now considering in what way the facilities available to back benchers, particularly in research on matters coming before Parliament might be improved.
The present motion is concerned solely with the question of whether a measure of financial assistance should be made available to Opposition parties to assist

them in their parliamentary work here at Westminster, and I emphasise that it is here at Wesminster only.
I have, of course, held a series of discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House about these present proposals. I believe that this strengthening of Parliament, through the strengthening of the Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties, would be generally welcomed in the country.
There has to be an objective formula for this to be done. The formula that I propose for the allocation of these funds is £500 per seat and £100 for every 200 votes. It is based on how many seats each Opposition party won at the previous General Election, and also how many votes it received. The vote element reflects the fact that two parties with approximately the same number of Members are likely to have different parliamentary burdens if their overall voting support varies widely. There is. I believe, a correlation between the amount of correspondence coming into a party office and the number of votes that the party received at the General Election. That is why voting comes into the formula as well as seats.
In divising this formula and deciding what allocations should be made to the


Opposition parties we have had to make a judgment of how much money they require for their various parliamentary duties. I have, of course, discussed this with the Opposition parties during my consultations with them.
For example, we have taken the view that there should be a maximum which can be paid to any party because the responsibilities of a principal Opposition party are not necessarily greater because it has, say, 250 rather than 200 Members. We achieved the figure for this maximum by costing a modest establishment for the Leader of the Opposition's office and estimating the amount required for assistance in the Whip's Office and for research assistance for Front Bench spokesmen. Those three elements have been costed, and that is how we have arrived at the cut-off or maximum figure. No assessment of this kind can be precise, therefore, but I believe our figures are reasonably based, and we can gain from experience as we go along if the House agrees with this proposal.
The way in which the sums allocated might be spent under these proposals would be a matter for the parties themselves to decide, provided that they were able to certify to the Clerk of the House, as our Accounting Officer, that their allocation had been spent exclusively in relation to their parties' parliamentary business. As I have indicated on a previous occasion, however, I would expect that the principal areas of expenditure would be research assistance for Front Bench spokesmen, assistance in the Opposition Whips' Offices—and Opposition Whips' Offices are becoming extremely expensive to run—and office staff for the Leader of the Opposition.
In these days it is becoming increasingly difficult for Opposition parties to keep up with those who are backed by the vast resources of Government, either in research or in administration. We believe that a healthy and lively Opposition is an essential part of democracy, and we feel that our proposals will go a little way towards redressing the balance between Government and Opposition. The position is becoming increasingly difficult because of the increasing complexity of the issues with which Parliament is faced, and, of course, it is partly due to rising prices.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be willing to reply at the end of the debate to any specific questions which may be raised. At this stage, therefore, I do not wish to say more than that I believe that these proposals, modest and limited though they are in comparison with what is done in many overseas Parliaments, such as Canada, Western Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, would provide an overdue and worthwhile reinforcement of the essential contribution which the political parties make to our parliamentary life.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The House will have noted that this somewhat surprising motion comes without any enabling legislation. I thought that perhaps that was the matter which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wanted to raise. It is a motion without—

Mr. Speaker: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I am afraid that I made a mistake when I said that I was not selecting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). When the motion was before the House last time, I gave an indication that I would select the hon. Gentleman's amendment. That was on 13th January. I am reported in column 91 of the Official Report as indicating that I would select the amendment. In view of that, it is appropriate for me to reverse my decision and to select it for the hon. Gentleman to move at a later stage.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may thank you later.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This motion purports to disburse public money in a new way without any enabling Act, without any Committee or Report stage and, as far as I know, without any Queen's Consent being signified, which is the normal precursor to any legislation authorising expenditure. We should be very careful before entertaining motions of this kind which can result in a considerable extra demand upon public resources in a manner which is definitely not non-controversial.
There will be no opportunity for the House, because of the manner in which it is being done, to accept some of the provisions and to reject others. The motion can be either accepted or rejected in toto, with the exception that we shall have the opportunity of voting on the commencing date in terms of the amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, have now selected in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
I am most concerned that this will be the first of a series of motions thinking up new ways of disbursing public money at a time when the country is groaning from excessive taxation.
Political parties do not commend themselves to the electorate by failing to do their job of attracting financial support and asking that money should be taken compulsorily from the electorate at large and disbursed in this manner because they are incapable of raising it from those who support the policies that they advocate. That is basically what the motion is about. It is about imposing on the public at large compulsory contributions to political parties which they are unwilling to make voluntarily. If people were willing to make such contributions voluntarily, there would be no purpose in a motion of this kind.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not draw any distinction between the financing of a political party for its purposes outside this House and the financing of that political party and the pressure that that could put upon individual Members for its functions within the House? Does he not draw any distinction between the two?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, I draw a distinction between the two. There is a valid distinction. However, my point is still good. If the Government wish to impose a charge of this kind upon the electorate, they should say so in their election manifesto at the General Election and then introduce that proposal in the form of a Bill to go through Parliament in the normal way, not introduce a measure of this kind which has never been put before the electorate and which it is reasonable to suppose will, with the passage of years, expand into a greater demand, as these things do, not least because of inflation.
We may find similar motions for other bodies. We will be told that other admirable bodies are unable to raise money for themselves, so a motion, not a Bill, will appear on the Paper asking for authorisation to spend this quite unprecedented sum of money.
I know that political parties find difficulty in financing their research, but the inherent nature of that difficulty is surely that their organisation is defective. Indeed, such money as they raise in voluntary subscriptions is often squandered in ways which are totally inappropriate instead of being spent for purposes such as those set out in the motion.
If political parties cannot provide for themselves from those who support their ideals and policies the means of supplying themselves with these admittedly necessary services, they do not deserve to survive. I see no reason whatever, at a time when individuals, businesses and enterprises of every kind are groaning under national and local taxation, for adding yet another straw to that camel's back. For that reason, I shall most certainly vote against the motion.

Mr. George Cunningham: In accordance with the principle that the hon. Gentleman has enunciated, may I ask whether he proposes to go without his parliamentary salary and instead to rely upon putting a collection box in his constituency office?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, I have no such intention. Nor, as far as I am aware, has any proposal been made to introduce a new burden on the taxpayer by paying Members of Parliament who were not previously paid. There is no such motion, nor am I aware that any such motion is proposed. The hon. Gentleman may not know, but the reason first proposed for the remuneration of Members of Parliament was that people were unable to offer themselves to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons unless they had substantial wealth or were backed by an enormously wealthy body which would enable them to live without income. That was the reason for the salary of Members of Parliament being supplied.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The hon. Gentleman is advocating the motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not advocating the motion. I am advocating that


we should vote against the motion. It is an entirely new principle that if a number of people band themselves into a political party, that party should receive public funds.
What is the likely consequence? There is a huge limit, but a limit, of £150,000. What incentive does it provide? It provides an incentive for a splintering into lots of little groups, each of which will qualify for £150,000. [Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, it does. Until not so long ago, before the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) appeared in this House —the hon. Gentleman has not been here very long—there were on the Conservative benches Members who described themselves as National Liberals. In my view, they were indistinguishable from Conservatives. However, according to the motion, that grouping would have been entitled a separate £150,000.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. The £150,000 is the amount that the Conservative Party would get. All the parties are based on a formula. There is a cut-off for the Conservative Party, as I explained. Therefore, the small parties will get only a very small amount of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The motion says nothing about the Conservative Party. It does not specify any party. The formula and the cut-off point applies to all parties. The definition of a party is what any group of Members call themselves. There cannot be any other definition. Therefore, any party can qualify up to this limit on the basis of the seats that it holds. It will get £5,000 for every one million votes cast in its favour. The formula refers to £1 for every 200 votes. If the right hon. Gentleman, who was once a schoolmaster, cares to make his own computation, he will find that the arithmetic is correct.

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph 2, he will see the formula is,
 £500 for each seat won by the party "in the election plus £1 for every 200 seats with a maximum—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It does not say that.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sorry. For every 200 votes, subject to a maximum of £150,000. If the hon. Gentleman works that out, he will find that the small parties in this House get a very small amount of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has tabled the wrong motion. If he meant what he said, plus £1 for every 200 seats "—[HON. MEMBERS: "Votes."] That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The right hon. Gentleman withdrew it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Exactly. But £1 for every 200 votes is £5,000 for every one million votes, is it not? That is what I said and that is what the right hon. Gentleman denied. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to withdraw his correction?

Mr. Short: I have not worked that out yet, but the formula is clearly set out in the second paragraph. All that I am saying is that the only party in the House at present which would get the maximum is the Conservative Party. The smaller parties would get a very small amount, which would be based on the formula. The hon. Gentleman can work out the amount for the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru if he wishes to do so. He will then find that the amounts are very small.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of simple arthmetic, the right hon. Gentleman intervened quite unnecessarily, first, to deny an entirely accurate point of arithmetic which I put but which he was incapable of working out for himself, and then to misquote his own motion. Any party would get £5,000 per 1 million votes cast. That is the formula in the motion.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in order to receive £150,000, which is the maximum, a small party would have to obtain 30 million votes? Unless there is a huge upsurge in the birthrate, which is not envisaged, it is unlikely that any splinter parties which apply will receive the maximum.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Certainly. The limit is not likely to be reached, but the


formula is the same. Whether the £5,000 per 1 million votes is distributed through a large number of small parties or whether it is confined to one large party, the same amount of public money will be paid. That is the point which hon. Members seem to be incapable of grasping. It is £1 for every 200 votes cast, however it is distributed.
The point I was making was that, just as in the past the Conservative Party was, technically, divided into two parties—the Conservatives and the National Liberals—so this motion will tend to promote a splintering of descriptions because that is where the financial incentive lies. We may even have pro-Common Market Socialists and anti-Common Market Socialists. They may even be formally recognised and, indeed, some of them might find themselves in opposition to the Government.
I content myself with repeating that if the Government want to put a measure of this kind before the House, the proper means of doing it is by a Bill which can pass through its Committee and Report stages, and before introducing it they should announce their intention at an election. This motion is an improper way of doing something which is inherently undesirable at any time but particularly undesirable at a time of national stringency.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1975
2. Unsolicited Goods and Services (Amendment) Act 1975
3. Social Security Act 1975
4. Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975
5. Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975
6. Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Northern Ireland) (Old Cases) Act 1975
7. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975

8. Pier and Harbour Order (Fish-guard and Goodwick Harbour) Confirmation Act 1975

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OPPOSITION PARTIES

Question again proposed.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, in line 1, leave out 1975 ' and insert instead thereof:
'following upon the first General Election held after October 1974'.
I commence where the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) finished. I, too, am against the motion in toto but even if I were in agreement with the blandishment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which I am not, this is a matter which should have the full-hearted consent of the people before Parliament passes judgment. It might be something which we could put on the referendum, but certainly it should be put to the electorate before we come to a decision.
That is why I tabled my amendment which I am glad you have agreed to call, Speaker. I accept that, through inadvertence, you said wrongly earlier that you would not call it, although you had previously agreed to do so. My objective is to assist right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who are not here, through no fault of their own. This motion was due to be debated next Monday. However, hon. Members make appointments and arrange business a long way in advance, and, therefore, I am not castigating Members who are not present, because they did not know that this matter would be debated today.
However, the Government, the Opposition and the Liberals knew that Thursday usually is the day when, all things being equal, business can be fixed by arrangement in such a way that it can be slipped through. That is regrettable on a matter such as that which we are debating. Money—and I am not concerned whether it is a pound, £150,000, £5,000 or £5—will he taken out of the pockets of my old-age pensioners and the old-age pensioners represented by the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles) rose—

Mr. Lewis: No. The debate is already too restricted.
People who are poorly paid but perhaps paying tax and people who have spent their working lives in the trade union and Labour movement fighting and struggling against the Tory Party and fighting against the Liberal Party will now have to contribute through their taxes without having the opportunity of passing an opinion on supporting the Tory and Liberal Parties. Likewise, I agree that good, solid Tories who, throughout their working lives, have fought against the Labour and trade union movement, rightly or wrongly—I might think wrongly—and who now find it hard to manage because of inflation, the cost of living, and so on, will have to pay through their taxes in order to support the Labour Party.

Mr. William Clark: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I do not wish to give way. Time is limited. The hon. Gentleman must attack the two Front Benches because they have limited the debate.
It is morally wrong to take money out of the pockets of people who can ill afford it in order to contribute to concerns which they have spent their working lives opposing.

Mr. William Clark: Mr. William Clark rose—

Mr. Lewis: Very well, if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. William Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman, with the same logic, agree that it is wrong to use taxpayers' money to pay political advisers to Ministers who are political appointees?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I have raised that matter in the House. I have opposed it, and the official Opposition have opposed it. I wish that the Opposition would oppose this motion. Why do they not? They know that they are on to a good thing. Do not let us kid ourselves: this is only the start, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suggested. He said that Opposition parties did better in Germany, France and Canada. A Minister will say—it may not be my right hon. Friend; it may be a Tory Minister—that the cost of living, prices, fares, postage, and telephone charges have increased and,

therefore, the sums suggested in the motion should be increased. I see the Liberal Whip nodding.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry; I withdraw that. The hon. Gentleman will probably nod in agreement with my next remark.
I heard the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) say that the Leader of the Liberal Party should receive a salary. That will be the next suggestion. It will then be suggested that, as with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister when they vacate office, he should get a pension—although a pension four or five times greater than any working-class person would get. After the right hon. Gentleman gets his salary, that will be the next step, and let us not kid ourselves. This is the normal sequence of events; it has happened.
I am against this because at this very moment, at 4.30 this afternoon, I cannot get £1 extra for children in my constituency who cannot go to school because there are not enough schools and not enough teachers. We have large numbers of immigrant children, and, because they have to learn Hindu or Urdu to be able to teach those children, teachers refuse to come into my constituency and go instead to better areas. Then, there is a shortage of housing and a shortage of this, that and the other.
When I go to the Treasury it says it cannot allow us any money because it has no money. When I go to the Ministry of Education and Science it says it cannot give me any money, and so children in my constituency have to be pushed out, and they find they are on a two- or three-day week. According to the law they must go to school for five days a week but they can go for only two or three days. All that is needed is money but we cannot get it from the Treasury. The Treasury says it has not got the money, but it can find it for this.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the situation which he is describing in our borough is one not only of failing to get facilities that we require to meet our needs but of the closure of existing facilities, particularly the Poplar Hospital, which was doing a good job?

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend raises what was to have been my next point. I was going to pay tribute to him and say that he above all people has led a campaign in which I have been a quiescent Member. I joined in yesterday because he put up a great fight over the closing of the Poplar Hospital. Hon. Members talk about the Westminster Hospital but they do not know what is happening in the East End of London where there are large numbers of people suffering from incurable diseases and susceptible to illness. Yet, far from getting the new hospital, both Governments have stopped it over the years. The question of the new Newham hospital has been going on for about 15 years. It has been stopped because it is said there is not enough money. Now they have the audacity to close the Poplar Hospital and to raise difficulties about finding nurses and doctors and paying salaries but they can find the money for this.
I strongly object to this proposal. It has been said, with some degree of truth on the part of the Tory Party and the Liberal Party, that the Labour Party is in part financed by the trade unions and trade unionists' contributions. That is true. They go on to say that because the trade unions pay the piper they call the tune, and I accept that to some extent that is true. Equally, I retaliate by saying that the Tory Party is in the main financed by big business, and in the main big business calls the tune. Behind the Liberal Party there is Rowntrees, the chocolate people.

Mr. Steel: Mr. Steel indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman does not agree, then we will agree to disagree. Speaking in a general, not a particular way, he who pays the piper calls the tune. We in this House know that one of the stumbling blocks to any progress, with any Government and from any Minister, is the argument that is always trotted out to people that the Treasury will not agree, or that the Treasury will agree if it makes its way. Are we not to have a situation where the Treasury comes in? Is there not a danger that the Treasury will call the tune?

Mr. Spearing: The establishment.

Mr. Lewis: We shall have a situation where if one is a good blue-eyed boy

and behaves oneself the Treasury will be willing to come forward to help, assist and increase, but if one is not, then it will not. So again there is a danger that we shall find, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that the establishment will be having direct, or certainly indirect, control over what the parties do and do not do, and how they progress, or do not progress, certainly from a financial aspect.
Let us look at this motion, which is so widely and loosely worded. In paragraph 6 there are the words:
in relation to the party parliamentary business ".
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, have been here for some 30 years.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Too long.

Mr. Lewis: That is an old saying, and the hon. Gentleman puts on fat every time he says it. He says it every week, and we see the result.
A party's parliamentary business can be stretched to cover any sin one wishes it to cover. An hon. Gentleman spoke of the Common Market. What happens if Mr. X wants to go to a meeting somewhere? Who is going to challenge whether or not that is to do with parliamentary business? The Leader of the Opposition—I had better not say the present Leader of the Opposition, because I want to attack not the person but the principle—is supplied with a car, chauffeur and petrol at Government expense. I am not going to challenge either or any of them, but no one will tell me that on every single occasion that that car and chauffeur went out with Mr. X or Mr. Y to A or B it was on purely parliamentary business for I know that that is not true. It cannot happen, because there are occasions when, quite legitimately, one cannot organise things in that way.
I am only saying that this provision not only can, but will, be stretched and we shall find a situation where it is said that we have now to stretch the expenses because what is allowed does not cover such things. Who knows? The next step may be not only a parliamentary salary for the Leader of the Liberal Party but a car and chauffeur for him. I hope that in throwing out these ideas I shall not put ideas into hon. Members' heads.
Then, what about the Leader of the Scottish Nationals? What about my hon. Friend the Leader of the Welsh Nationals? Why should he not have a salary and a free pension when he decides to pack up? We can go on stretching this. We shall have a situation where anyone may come along—and I am not concerned about the fact that I am known not to be an establishment man, sucking up to the Leader of my party—

Mr. Spearing: Heaven forbid.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Heaven forbid. I have been here for 30 years, and if I had wanted to, I could have done that. I do not like crawling but some people want to get on the band wagon. In the Army, before the word "crawling" there was another adjective. I do not like that. I do not want this extended to give an opportunity that could lead to the revolting suggestion that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay money, through their taxes, to parties to which they are violently opposed. After all, that would be dishonest, and I certainly will not vote for this.
Some of my hon. Friends here represent mining constituencies. What of the miner who was injured in the pit 40 or 50 years ago, shabbily treated by the former private owners and probably not so well treated even by the present National Coal Board, a man with a miserly, mean pension of a few pounds a week for which he has fought and struggled all his life. Now he is to find himself or his relatives, perhaps his son or daughter, called upon to pay money to finance the Tory Party which he has opposed all his life. It is immoral. It is unjust.
If the Government can argue on this, then let us give the people a chance to decide. Let us say we will postpone this until the first General Election held after last October. That is not bad. That is not unfair. If my right hon. Friend and the Opposition think it is fair, and if they believe in democracy and getting the full-hearted consent of the people, why not let us ask the people?

Mr. William Clark: Have another referendum.

Mr. Lewis: I am not against that but I should prefer a General Election.

because that is decided on political issues and each individual candidate could say "I oppose taxpayers' money being used to finance any political party." if I say that and I am defeated the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will be right in saying that 30 years is too long. I shall have to give up my seat after having been here for 35 years. Let hon. Members take that step and put this matter to the people. If we get the will of the people, I shall be willing to abide by their decision.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Government, in the Queen's Speech in March—and I stress March—of last year, said it was their intention to give financial aid to opposition parties in the House? They fought a General Election in October after the publication of that Queen's Speech. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that the Government have a mandate for the policy which they announced in March of last year prior to the October election?

Mr. Lewis: No, I do not think they have. The Government often put into Queen's Speeches things that are not in their manifesto, things that have never been suggested in a manifesto. The Queen's Speech is an omnibus document. Things which are not in the Queen's Speech are often added afterwards as time goes on. What was in the Queen's Speech in March has no relevance to this debate. Each Session of Parliament stands on its own. What matters is that the manifesto on which the Government fought the election contains no reference to this money being provided by the taxpayer.
If an hon. Member objects to a proposal, his objection is registered when the measure conies before the House. If the Government had introduced a Bill to deal with this proposal I should have opposed it day in and day out in Committee. My only chance of opposing the matter today was to put down an amendment, and this I did at the first available opportunity. If a Bill were introduced on this subject I should put down hundreds of amendments. It is not my fault or the fault of the hon. Member for Rochdale that the Government have chosen this way of doing what I call a little sleight of hand.
I cannot do better than quote the words of the former right hon. Member for Woodford who said about a certain Bill


 Let the Government take it away and slit its dirty throat. We do not want it here.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I begin by apologising to the Leader of the House for missing his opening words on what I regard as an important occasion.
I returned late after a visit to the European Commission in Brussels.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will withdraw the implication that the timing of the debate was altered as a result of collusion between the parties who would benefit and so that this proposal could be slipped through the House on a Thursday afternoon. That is not the case. The first that I knew of the change of business was when the Leader of the House announced it at the Dispatch Box. There was no consultation beforehand. In any case, such consultation as there was between the two main parties in the House was concerned with retiming the debate on the Clay Cross measure and had nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I withdraw what I said if I have in any way cast aspersions on the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). When he reads my remarks he will see that I said that it was the usual custom of the Opposition and the Government, when they want to slip something through, to re-arrange business, and that this is what happened on this occasion. If I did not say that, I withdraw what I did say and give way to the hon. Gentleman because the matter is fresher in his memory than it is in mine.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make my speech in the middle of his interventions. I accept his withdrawal.
We are all moved by the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about other matters of welfare in his constituency, but I think we must keep a sense of proportion about what is being proposed. Not many new hospitals or schools could be built with the sum of money that is being discussed here.
The House should recognise that no new principle is involved in what the Leader of the House is proposing. The

only new principle, if there is one at all, is that the House is being asked formally to approve what is being proposed. It is being asked to approve an extension of something that has been done. The House is being asked to extend financial support for the more effective working of Parliament. That is what this is all about. I do not want to stray from the motion, but we have to remember that this is one of a package of proposals which the Government brought forward.
If hon. Members have read the answers to Written Questions on 4th March they will know that in answer to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) it was said that the value of financial help to the official Opposition in both Houses of Parliament is £65,000, although £31,000 is payable in salaries to Opposition leaders and Whips in both Houses. This has never come before the House. This has been developed over the years by successive Governments. I make no criticism of it, because it is right and proper, but the fact is that the House has never been asked to approve these payments. The principle of public spending to support the fabric of opposition in Parliament is nothing new, and it is not being introduced by this motion.

Mr. Spearing: What the hon. Gentleman says is generally well known, although the figures he quoted are interesting. Does he agree that there is a difference of principle between salaries and the provision of assistance in kind—heating, accommodation, and so on—to office holders and the kind of cash allowance that is envisaged in the motion?

Mr. Steel: I shall come in a moment to the methods of assistance. I do not know when it began, but it is not widely known that civil servants have worked in the Opposition Whips' Office under successive Governments. This no doubt accounts for part of the £65,000 to which I referred. That form of assistance, which has never been available until now to parties other than the official Opposition, is being extended.
In view of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West I should like to make it clear to the House that the Parliamentary Liberal Party has


no intention either now or in the foreseeable future—though it is impossible for any party to bind its successors—to pay salaries to leaders or Whips. I hope, therefore, that we can put that argument on one side.
I believe that the House has cause to be grateful to the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust. It is a non-charitable trust, and three years ago it made available to Members of all parties financial assistance in the form of staffing and research, something which the House hitherto has done very badly. We are all grateful for the services that we receive from the Library, but we do not in this country have the system of professional assistance to political parties that is widespread elsewhere.
I do not wish to put words or thoughts into the mouth or mind of the Lord President of the Council, but the Joseph Rowntree Social Service Trust may have done us all a service over the last three years. This experiment could be of genuine help to all political parties, and the Government themselves have used their experience of this scheme to extend the practice of their predecessors of bringing political advisers into the Civil Service and on to the payroll. I think I am right in saying that some of the personnel came into the Government direct from the Rowntree Trust scheme.
This is a development in modern democracy about which we should not quibble. The Government of the day have always had the weight of the professional Civil Service behind them. The secondary parties, whether they be in Government or Opposition, should have their democratic ideas evolved into the Government machine as well as those of the Civil Service. Indeed, it could be argued that one of the problems of our country is that over the years the Civil Service has developed far greater power than the politicians.
This is an attempt not to create a counter-Civil Service—that is far too grandiose an idea—but a limited proposal to ensure that the views of the different political parties, as reflected in the support that they have in the country, are implemented effectively in the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Why is it that a party worth its salt cannot

raise money through its own sources to pay for these things? What is there about taxpayers' money that makes it so much better?

Mr. Steel: I draw a clear distinction between the financing of political parties in the country and the financing of political parties in the House. We have to finance the Liberal Party by subscriptions from individuals. We do not have the mass support of the trade union movement or big business. Until now we have had to finance the limited staffing that we have in Parliament by appeals to our supporters in the country. That has been in direct competition with the appeals made by the Liberal Party in the country. That is a tension that exists at all times in all political parties.
I do not believe that this proposal will in any way relieve us of the obligation to continue to attract financial support from people outside, but it is a bad principle that political parties should operate in the House—as distinct from campaigns in the country—by being dependent on them. We should not be beholden to any paymasters outside the House. It is a healthy sign that we shall be free of too much obligation to any particular paymasters.
How do we propose to make use of the cash if the House approves this measure? The Liberal Party will use it for staffing. We intend to help our party's political machine. I think I am right in saying that during the last election we had almost half as many votes as the official Opposition. That is reflected in the volume of mail and deputations that we receive but not in the representation of Liberals on Committees in the House. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Finance Bill but I took an interest in some of its deliberations. The Conservative Party was represented by a considerable number of Members but the Liberal Party had only one representative. That was the proper ration, I agree. The Liberal representative was expected to keep abreast of all the technical matters which were shared amongst the many Conservative Members. Without some sort of back-up it is difficult to do that sort of job effectively.
I have two questions to ask the Leader of the House. First, this proposal makes no provision for inflation or any change in circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Oh.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West—I do not want to malign him—is one of those concerned about the level of parliamentary salaries. They, too, take no account of inflation and they remain at a flat level until years later.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Steel: No, I am not giving way. Similarly, if we employ individuals on a fixed sum we would be irresponsible employers if we were not to ensure that there was some provision at some time in the future for some element of review by the House. I return to my first question—namely, what machinery will there he for reviewing the provision in future?
Secondly, I believe that there is a case, if we are to use most of the money for research staffing in the House, to suggest that the persons concerned should be taken directly on to the public payroll without cash going through the hands of the political parties. Provision should be up to the value of the amount stated rather than straight cash transactions. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be willing to consider that point.
Finally, I return to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). This is not a new proposal. The Government spelt it out—not in a precise formula but in principle—in the Queen's Speech after the February General Election. It was well known and discussion took place amongst the parties during the previous Parliament. It was well known during the last election that it would be the Labour Government's intention, if returned to office, to introduce a scheme of this kind. There can be no argument in favour of the amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: First, I take up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh. Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). The Ulster Unionists also had the good fortune to have a representative on the Finance Bill Committee. Despite our research resources being very limited, I think we gave a reasonably good account of ourselves, thanks to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down,

South (Mr. Powell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I think that that point would be conceded not only by their Committee colleagues but by the whole House.
Our party always endeavours to play a constructive and responsible part in the proceedings of the House and in the functioning of Parliament generally. We shall participate in whatever arrangements are made as a result of our deliberations today. We have strong views on what is being proposed. We have grave reservations on the proposal, which will involve the use of public funds in forms of support which should be the responsibility of those who return representatives and parties to the House. Those who support parties in the country should feel that they have a duty and even an obligation to provide whatever aid may be considered necessary to enable the party of their choice to discharge its function in the House.
The Ulster Unionists are working under a particular disadvantage. First, we are further from our support base than any other party in the House. Secondly, we have the problem that there is a certain dichotomy of thought within the electorate of Northern Ireland. They have always found it difficult to decide where their priorities lie. Those parties who have representatives in the Parliaments, assemblies or conventions, whatever they may be, in Stormont and representatives in this House find that there is a tendency for their supporters to divide their loyalty and support between Westminster and Stormont.
It is important to remember, although we get in the habit of thinking that there is no Assembly or Government at Stormont, that the members of the Assembly are still functioning, are still being paid their salaries and are still carrying out their duties as representatives of the people. This tends to cause a certain division of thought within the electorate in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, taking into account this peculiar handicap under which we suffer, we are prepared to compete with our colleagues who represent the electorate in the Assembly for whatever voluntary resources may be available for support of parliamentary activities generally.
We recognise that the motion is not to be confused with the present consideration of still further assistance to private Members, but, separate though that matter may be, it cannot be left out of account entirely since it does not seem essential that there should be a clear division between, for example, research geared to support individual Members or subject spokesmen in all the opposition parties and research for parties as units. Even as they stand, those research allowances are comparatively generous and in the current review it seems likely that a recommendation will be made that they should be increased.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are being very liberal in this matter and have no intention of using compulsion, and that if his party has no desire to accept the money offered, it will not be compelled to do so?

Mr. Cyril Smith: Let us hear him say so.

Mr. Molyneaux: We already have the courage of our convictions—

Mr. Cyril Smith: And the cheques that go with it.

Mr. Molyneaux: Surely it would be possible for individual Members to pool part of their research allowances, to establish whatever mechanism they may feel necessary and desirable, to enable them to operate effectively in Parliament.
Finally, I am tempted to ask what is to be the attitude to Government backbenchers. Is it not fair to say that, when a party comes to power, its foremost subject spokesmen become Ministers and are removed from contact with backbenchers and that the subject committees are then rather isolated and left to their own devices? If those committee Members who supported the Government of the day were to club together to form groups with research resources pooled by individual Members, would there not be a tendency to regard those groups as centres of revolt against their own Government? For all I know, experiments in that line may be under way already. But I am sure

that such moves would not meet with the approval of the Government of the day. In the long run, I doubt whether the instability which would thus be caused would be in the national interest.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I rise to declare my firm opposition to the motion. I can only regret that this important subject is being debated in such a thin House. This is not just a matter of a burden on the taxpayer, although I share some of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis); the most serious aspect of this debate is not the burden inflicted on those who have to contribute towards these payments but the effect on those who receive them.
After all, we live today in an age of patronage which would make Walpole blush. We live in an age in which, with increasing State intervention, more and more patronage is at the disposal of the executive. Purses of gold are tossed around in a way which would have seemed shameful to a medieval monarch. There are clamours for subsidies for a variety of public institutions whose glory in our democracy is that they are free and unsubsidised. There have been demands for subsidies for the Press. Some people do not realise that the tendency if there were such subsidies would be towards a kept Press. I do not want to see a kept Press and I do not want to see kept parties, however ingenious the formulae which my right hon. Friend has provided.
Without dwelling unduly on the point of view expressed by the Liberal Chief Whip, if we are establishing a precedent today for the financial support of parties as groupings, we shall be moving on to a slippery slope at the end of which patronage by individuals will be supplanted by the patronage of parties. That is something which, had he thought out the implications, my right hon. Friend would not, as a good democrat, have supported.

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my point that we have already established the precedent and principle: it is just that the House has never approved it, that it has grown over the years.

Mr. Edelman: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the specific support given to the servants of the parties, he is talking about something quite different from this massive support which is now being offered colectively to the parties.
I am old enough to remember the time when the Labour Party, to which I have belonged all my life, was the party of the workers' pennies. It was none the worst for that: it was all the better for that, because it sprang from the voluntary enthusiasm of those who created a party which expressed a collective philosophy. I want to see an increase not a diminution, of that spirit. One of the evils of our time is the way in which spontaneous initiative and voluntary activity, not only in politics but in every other area of life, has been replaced by the paid machine. What we are seeing today is another step in the direction of machine politics in which we are being asked to provide a subsidy for political parties.
One of the dangers of the motion is not just that it will enlarge the area of patronage but that it will create a system of delegated patronage. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about the political advisers which Ministers have been allowed to accumulate. I have always thought that there are dangers in the arbitrary exercise of patronage by Ministers in appointing personal advisers on salaries assimilated to those of the Civil Service. These payments are made in total defiance of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the last century.
In the 1850s, well over 100 years ago, there was a reform of the Civil Service designed to do away with corruption and patronage. A system was introduced under which the Civil Service Commission emerged as an independent body able to control the exercise of nepotism and patronage. Now, in our own times, subtly and insidiously, patronage has been creeping back. In all areas of our political society, we have seen the return of the placemen and the payroll vote. The Government's payroll vote has become a kind of journalistic joke, but I take it seriously.
If we are talking about democracy, we must ensure that the representatives of the nation are independent people uninfluenced by any cash nexus or financial

consideration. When Governments have at their disposal a patronage of 120 places, some of them involving quite high financial consideration, and those who fill them are expected—except perhaps in the exceptional case of the Common Market—to vote in accordance with the decision of the executive, there is an inroad into democracy which we should take into account.
In recent years, there has been an astonishing increase in the amount of patronage available to the executive. In recent weeks I have tabled a number of Questions to try to ascertain the area and the level of finance involved in these appointments which have been made outside the control of the Civil Service Commission. In my Questions I have asked various Ministers how many offices of profit are within their gift outside the normal rules of appointment through the Civil Service Commission. If the House will bear with me, I shall cite three or four cases which may be instructive and illuminating.
For example, the Secretary of State for Social Services has 3,100 appointments at her disposal, worth about£1¾ million. The Home Secretary disposes of the appointments of nine chairmen and 96 members of various boards, including the BBC, the IBA, the Community Relations Commission, the Horserace Totalisator Board and so on, costing about £205,000. The Secretary of State for Industry has in his gift 59 jobs worth about £367,000.

Mr. John Peyton: I should like to observe that if the hon. Gentleman finds this so shocking, he will find in the coming months plenty of opportunities for cutting down at least on the expansion of patronage in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman, with his typically entertaining flippancy, has sought to divert the argument from the central point, on which I hope I carry most of the House. I was about to say that with the coming of the National Enterprise Board my right hon. Friend is likely to have many more jobs at his disposal. I have no objection to the jobs in and for themselves. But what I would urge—parenthetically, as I have been interrupted on this point—is that these appointments should be open to public


competition under the proper control of the Civil Service Commission or an appropriate ad hoc board in order to ensure that the appointments are not made through nepotism, favouritism or patronage. Another illustration is the Prime Minister himself, who advises the Queen on 61 appointments costing about £630,000.
If one were to run through all these appointments within the gift of Ministers or the patronage available to Secretaries of State, one would be conscious of the great revolution which has taken place within our administration. Our administration is nothing like the administration it was when the Gladstonian reforms were introduced. I believe that Mr. Gladstone, surveying the present scene from where he is, would be turning in his grave when reflecting on the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms which were designed once and for all to put an end to nepotism and favouritism within the Civil Service. He would certainly be distressed.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: In his arguments that all such appointments should be made by public competition through the Civil Service Commission, would my hon. Friend care to relate his remarks to the oft-expressed dissatisfaction — oft-expressed on these benches—with the workings of the Civil Service Commission in the sense that the Civil Service, it is sometimes asserted—I know not whether this be true—is still dominated by those who went to the same schools and the same universities? It seems to me that my hon. Friend could not possibly have it both ways.

Mr. Edelman: I do not share that view. I believe that it is a very dangerous slope once one starts on the appointment of the individuals simply because they happen to share one's political view. It may be appropriate today; it may well be inappropriate tomorrow. I am astonished that my hon. Friend should lend himself to such a dangerous and, I believe, undesirable doctrine.

Mr. Fowler: Mr. Fowler indicated dissent.

Mr. Edelman: I turn to the distinction which has been made throughout the debate about the financial aid given to individuals and parties and the suggestion that somehow or other, if money is given

to the parliamentary parties, however small those parties, that in some way will improve their performance. I have said previously that I think that parties are concerned with the organisation of opinion, with the production of philosophies and with criticism of administration. They are concerned with providing alternative policies and programmes to those of the party in power. I do not believe that any party that is worth its salt, however small or large, can claim that merely to have more financial resources given by the executive through Parliament to help it in its work will necessarily improve the quality of that party.
Every hon. Member who has been a Member of the House for any length of time knows that we have at our disposal in the Library of the House a research staff who are second to none. I cannot believe that somehow or other the Tory Party will improve its performance by getting a grant of £150,000 from the public purse.
Equally, I am astonished at the Liberal Party. I say in passing that I regret that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), having shot his bolt in The Times of this morning, is not present in the Chamber now. I very much regret that the Liberal Party, the party of independence and laissez-faire, should lend itself to such a doctrine and, in turn, hold out a begging bowl to the executive asking for a penny in order to help it with its work. That shows a sad decline in the doctrine and philosophy of the Liberal Party.
There are many dangers which I shall not specify because I do not want to detain the House for much longer. However, I will say this: one of the corrupting influences in our time has been the mechanisation of politics. The machine has tried to take over from men. The public relations man has moved in to replace the statesman. Instead of the great quality expressed by the heroic figures of our parliamentary past and, indeed, of the present, we have the artifacts of the public relations men.
Will this fund be used to improve the image of the small parties or the Tory Party? How much of it will find its way, by circuitous routes, into the hands of the


public relations men? To what extent—this is the most important point—will the auditor, be he the Clerk of the House or someone else, put his hand into the books of the political parties and say "This is eligible, and that is not eligible "? To what extent, in short, will he seek to restrict or enlarge activities, or to muzzle the independence of any given party? The question of the auditor is of paramount importance. It is like authorising a policeman in a statutory form to have absolute right of access to a political meeting.
Therefore, I deplore what is being proposed. It certainly will not have my support. It is bad and, indeed, a sinister precedent for a parliamentary system. We should not tolerate it.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: It is time that someone uttered a few words of appreciation to the Government for their proposal. I draw the attention of those who have argued against it so eloquently, in some cases almost to the point of rabble rousing, to the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and. Peebles (Mr. Steel)—that this is the extension of a principle which already exists. If hon. Members are arguing that no assistance in any form whatsoever should be given to any Opposition party, logically they should table a motion to withdraw the support which the main Opposition party—whichever it happens to be at the time—receives from public funds. That would be a logical and consistent view. However, in the year that I have been a Member of the House I have not seen such a motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Put it down and I shall support it.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman returned to the House only in October. Perhaps he may be tabling such a motion. In the year that I have been a Member I have not see the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) or any other hon. Members put down motions on this subject for debate.
It is a little hypocritical to start attacking the other Opposition parties on a

matter which will enable them to play a more constructive rôle in the workings of this place unless those hon. Members who oppose this proposal are prepared to take the view that all support should be withdrawn from everyone.
I gathered from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West that he wants to stop Ministers making any appointments. I wonder whether such a proposal has been put on the Order Paper before? However, here it is today as a new and quite irrelevant thought intruded into the debate. Perhaps the factor which has impressed our party most in the last year has been the problem of operating effectively in criticising the executive and the way in which the executive operates, and in dealing with the vast bulk of detail which must be processed if we are to play a constructive and effective part.
This was considered by the Royal Commission on the Constitution in the substantial memorandum of dissent which dealt with this problem. It said in paragraph 315 on page 122,
 it is also evident that our major parties lack the capacity when in opposition to subject government policies to adequate and sufficiently detailed political scrutiny; nor have they the capacity to work out coherent and fully practical alternative programmes which will stand the test of the rigours of public office.
It then goes on,
 It is, in our view, vital to the health of the body politic that political parties should have the resources to enable them to carry out the research effort now required in the modern state if they are to offer the electorate the alternative, practical and fully worked out policies which are the essence of democratic choice.
All of us who have sat on Committees and have tackled Ministers have seen what happens. The Minister's PPS runs to the serried ranks of public servants sitting in the Box. The answers come floating back to the Minister who is able, in a few minutes, to dispose of our objections and then pass on to another point. We are totally without the resources to compete on those terms.
With the mass of legislation going through Parliament, if we want informed and critical questioning of the actions and proposals of the executive there must be a redress in the balance between the executive and the party which sustains it and the other parties which are required to play a part in the House. I


would have thought that the proposal now before us was somewhat modest in enabling that aim to be fulfilled. The hon Member for Tiverton talked of every party getting £150,000. My party will qualify for £9,700, and I can assure the House that that money will be spent on salaries for research people who will inform us and enable us to play our part more effectively both in the House and in Committee.
I hope that the rather negative attitude which is being adopted towards this proposal will not lead to the subject being dropped, and that the House will approve the motion today.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I rise to speak against the motion. I have listened with great interest to those hon. Members who have made their own contribution in their own particular way. As a member of the Labour Party who has played a leading rôle at local level for many years, I am ashamed to read such a motion on the Order Paper. I believe that there is a proper and intelligent alternative to using public funds to finance political parties. I believe that the problem of the political parties starts in the wards and constituencies. If the party is badly organised, if it does not have administrators, only too often will people go with the begging bowl prepared to take anybody's money to finance elections. I do not like that kind of behaviour.
If we are to obtain the sympathy and help of the people in the proper way, we have to prove to them that we are efficient administrators first and foremost, that we are able to organise and encourage the people in the wards and constituencies to play a proper part. There is a most important principle here. We were told recently by the Chairman of the Railways Board that he is proposing to withdraw the Heysham to Belfast ferry service because it is losing money during the period of the Northern Ireland emergency. Only yesterday his deputy chairman told me that but for the emergency the service would not be withdrawn. It is being withdrawn because traffic has fallen off and it does not pay its way.
Now we hear that the Merchant Fleet officers are threatening to strike at Easter, which means that workers who may want to sail between British and Continental ports will be faced with dislocation. Yet we have the effrontery to talk about using public funds to finance political parties.
I should like to know who will get those funds when they are claimed. Would the headquarters of the political parties take the money and use it, or would it filter through to the constituency and ward parties? I have no doubt that far more money than is mentioned in the motion could be used to increase the wages and salaries of those who work for the political parties at headquarters and regional level. I would prefer the Government to reduce rather than extend patronage and add to the already long list of victims of patronage. I calculate, although I stand to be corrected, that if the Labour Party claims the full amount shown in the motion the St. Helens constituency Labour Party would be entitled to claim £650.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I am a great admirer of Lancashire batting, but I think that my hon. Friend is batting on the wrong wicket. This motion is about aid to opposition parties in Parliament. It bears no relation to assistance to parties nationally.

Mr. Spriggs: The principle is the same. The Government are proposing to hand out public funds to political parties—we will say opposition parties if that will keep my hon. Friend happy. While we are prepared to stand back and allow unemployment to rise, while we refuse to finance the Railways Board or to give directions to such bodies that they must not close down essential services, I am not prepared to go into the Lobby to support this motion.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I, too, share the view expressed earlier that it is very sad that on an issue of such considerable importance, such constitutional importance, to this country, there is such a poorly attended House of Commons this afternoon. I feel that I must oppose this proposal even though I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will favour it and even though I sit on


the Opposition benches. It is wholly wrong and I should like to try to explain why.
Of course there is a relatively small amount of money involved, but that is no excuse. That was the excuse for the housemaid's baby—that it was only a little one. We are also told a rather curious doctrine. We are told first of all that the pass has already been sold, that there is already a precedent in the case of the payment for the Leader of the Opposition and certain other Opposition dignitaries. But we are also told at the same time "Of course, this is no precedent for the future, no precedent for any extension of aid to parties outside Parliament."
I cannot be alone in feeling that there is a certain discrepancy between the two parts of this argument. I believe that the payment of the Leader of the Opposition, which has been going since 1937, is different, because the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has a special place in our constitution. The person holding that post represents in a sense the Opposition as a whole, irrespective of the parties comprising the Opposition, whether they be one or many.
It is arguable, possibly, that a precedent was set in the past 10 years when this was extended to certain other dignitaries. If so, it is up to us today to say that it is a bad precedent and that we want it extended no further. To go on and say that what will be done for Opposition parties in Parliament will not be held to be a precedent for the extension of help to parties outside Parliament, possibly on a larger scale, is nonsense, first, because the whole thing was wrapped up in the same speech by the Leader of the House on 19th December. The whole thing is part and parcel of the same thing.
But it is nonsense for another reason. As the late Gertrude Stein would have said, a pound is a pound is a pound. If one gives a party a pound to help it with its parliamentary duties, it releases a pound that it has already to enable it to spend on something else in the country at large. It is impossible to distinguish between funds for one purpose and funds for another. There can be no earmarking, because funds can be legitimately confined to parliamentary purposes, but they release other money for other purposes.

So we should not delude ourselves as to what we are asked to approve this afternoon. It is the whole principle of taxpayers' money, public money, for political parties in general as parties.
The only yardstick, therefore, must be the yardstick that was used as a justification by the Leader of the House in his statement on 19th December, when he said that the various moves which he was suggesting would
greatly strengthen democracy in this country." —[Official Report, 19th December 1974: Vol. 883, c. 1824.]
We must ask ourselves "Would this proposal greatly strengthen parliamentary democracy in this country? "I accept that the political parties, particularly perhaps the Opposition parties, are hard up. This is a bad thing. They need money to go about their jobs effectively. But I do not assume from that they should be treated like lame ducks, like British Leyland, to be bailed out with public money as a result.
We must ask why they are hard up. I suggest that it is for two reasons. The first is that people have lost faith in the political parties to a certain extent and are not willing to subscribe as much voluntarily as they might otherwise do. They are also hard up because of inflation and other economic problems. It is difficult for people to find the money to subscribe to political parties, but are we to say to the electorate of this country "Because you no longer have faith in us, because you are hard up, therefore we are going to take the money from you "? That is what this is all about. I cannot see how this would strengthen parliamentary democracy in this country.
I take this very seriously, because I think that parliamentary democracy in this country is at a very low ebb in public esteem, but I cannot see that this sort of behaviour would increase public esteem and public respect for parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are political parties in which the public have not lost faith—in which, in fact, the public's faith is increasing? My party, which is small, is budgeting this year for £75,000, which is a big sum to find. We shall find it. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in making a public appeal for generous contributions?

Mr. Lawson: The leader of the Plaid Cymru party has made my point. He believes that he can get the money he needs from voluntary subscriptions or voluntary contributions.
One of the great aspects of this country in which we can take most pride is the spirit of voluntarism—voluntary organisations at all levels, charities, action groups, lobbies and political parties, all these great voluntary organisations and voluntary groups. This is something which we should cherish. It is not simply the matter that that is the way in which one gets close to the people, because one relies on the people for one's subscriptions. I concede that one interest group might be too strong, but in my opinion the reason why the trade union movement is too strong in the case of the Labour Party is a matter of history, institutions and constitution, not of the cash nexus.
But there is something far worse than getting too close to an interest group, and that is getting too far from the people. Voluntary contributions, whether one is a charity or a political party, keep one close to the people one relies on for one's financial support. Fund-raising may be a tedious business, but the fund-raising activity itself gives vigour and life to the organisations that conduct it and to the parties which go about their business in the constituencies. To say that we just dispense with all that, and shall increasingly rely on the taxpayer, is to change the whole nature of politics in this country and weaken democracy rather than strengthen it.
Certainly, if any time would be the right time—and I do not think that it would be—to dip our hands into the public's pockets as parties, this is not the right time. But I do not believe that this should ever be done. I agree that it would strengthen the party machine at the expense of the private Member. Contrary to what has been said, it may well strengthen the executive at the expense of the legislature. But strengthen democracy, no. It can only weaken it. Never before can I recall a better occasion for the use of the old tag
 Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I cannot go very far in taking up the points made by the hon. Member for

Blaby (Mr. Lawson), because his speech ranged a little wider than the motion.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in expressing grave reservations about the motion, because, being more than an extension of something we already have, it involves a change of principle.
I must declare an interest, as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. As there is a great divergence of view on the matter, it would have been proper, and in accordance with the practice of the House, at least to ask the Select Committee to consider it. We could have had evidence of what happens elsewhere, as well as evidence from members of the Opposition and the Government. We could have cleared the ground, even if we could not have produced a unanimous report. Part of the difficulty facing us results from the lack of such a procedure.
The strength of Parliament cannot be bought by money. A great deal of its strength lies in its innate procedures. The procedures which have led to the motion have not been in the best of tradition. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaby that the question is one of the strength of Parliament—against what? Is it against the people? Is it against the executive of the day, whatever that executive be, and whether in Whitehall or in Brussels?
The Front Benches of both the principal Government and Opposition parties, whichever is in power at the time, are either the executive or the potential executive. Therefore, we have an internecine war inside Parliament between those of us who are back benchers and those who are on the Front Benches as members of the executive or the potential executive.
The motion is likely to strengthen the executive more than the rest of Parliament. It is worthy of note that so far no back bencher, certainly on the Labour side, has supported the motion.

Mr. Spriggs: Might not this motion be interpreted as being meant to support a future Labour Party in opposition rather than the present Government?

Mr. Spearing: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I use "Opposition" and "Government" as applying to either party. I am not convinced that this


method would help the Labour Party in opposition.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is a little pessimistic?

Mr. Spearing: A wise politician guards against all eventualities, however unfortunate.
As to the strengthening of parliamentary democracy, a similar motion appeared on the Order Paper on the first day's sitting after Christmas and might have gone through but for the vigilance of some back benchers. That motion was put down without due notice. The procedure of notice and the procedure for permission to move amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has done, are at the heart of the strength of Parliament.
I draw attention to the car park issue, one of the most disgraceful episodes ever to have sullied this House. The then Leader of the House gave no notice of that motion when he announced the week's business. It was put on the Order Paper on 30th July 1971 and it was agreed to on the nod because no one knew that it would come up at eleven o'clock on a Friday. That is the sort of procedure that strikes at the root of the strength of the House, and I am not convinced that money can always put it right. Vigilance and hard work are equally important.

Mr. David Steel: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the car park, does he not accept that the moneys being proposed to support political parties are infinitely less than the moneys which were voted for the car park?

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but my point is one of principle. We are concerned with the principle today. The Front Bench say that they want to strengthen the power of Parliament, but it is the strength of Parliament vis-à-vis executive, which they represent. Parliament is partly executive and partly opposition to the executive on matters in which there is no political difference between the parties.
There is a striking distinction between this procedure and the appointment of the Select Committee to look into facilities

for Members of Parliament. We all know what we want, but a Select Committee is looking into it. Out of money provided by Parliament none of us is able to employ a secretary unless she is willing to accept well below the market rate. Nothing has been done about that. Minority parties realise that on balance they will lose out in terms of strength vis-à-vis Government parties. They must think of this not only absolutely but in relative terms. Without a Select Committee having been appointed, we are being asked to strengthen the Front Benches—that is what will happen.
It has been said that we need research facilities. In a modern State with the great complication of politics and economics we must have people who can do research. Is not one hallmark of democracy that a member of the public, not just a Member of Parliament, has easy and direct access to information—public access to public information? But we are getting further and further away from that, as is well known to hon. Members who try to handle EEC documents. Those documents are not easy of access to Members of Parliament, let alone the public.
If hon. Members are saying that to be able to understand all these complexities we need specialists who can get the information, should they not also say that the information should be made more easily available to the public and to Members of Parliament through strengthening research or Library facilities? That is surely of equal importance.
At the same time, there is a case for party needs, and I am not contesting that, particularly for some minority parties. We have heard about salaries for the Leader of the Opposition and the Whip and the need to staff the office of the Leader of the Opposition—or Leaders of the Oppositions if hon. Gentlemen wish. Work has to be done in connection with the Order Paper, the moving of amendments and keeping in touch with outside organisations. There is also the day-to-day organisation of the House and arrangements for Divisions and so on. I know that there are arrangements for helping parties in these matters, and to those I do not take great exception. If those arrangements are not available to minority parties, why not extend them?


I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) that there may be a degree of patronage in that, but at least it is nothing like the degree of patronage in the motion, especially in relation to research assistance for the Front Bench. That perhaps is one of the major threats to the relative power of the back bencher, which is small enough as it is.
I do not have to remind Conservatives that they are in some difficulty with patronage in their outside party organisation. They may be moving away from that position. The Labour Party does not suffer from that in its outside organisation. If we inject a greater power of patronage into our leaders inside the House, will there not be a danger of a greater degree of communication with further layers of semi-civil servants and party servants who move in and out of Whitehall? Will there not be a new breed of semi-professional politician-cum-civil servant perhaps serving an apprenticeship to the House? Should not we look at that aspect with great care?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We know that Ministers, right, left and centre, have had advisers and appointed them to ministerial jobs. Will not this be another stepping stone? As and when ministerial jobs come along, advisers to political parties will be appointed as Ministers.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be correct, although that is a matter of speculation. The provision of support in the form of liquid cash enables that practice to go on, whereas it would not with the secondment of civil servants which takes place at present.
If by some mischance the 'notion is agreed to, I hope that it will be changed. It appears to contain no power of audit over the money so expended. The powers of audit and the necessity to declare how the money is spent should be no less stringent than they are in relation to General Elections. It must be seen how much money is spent on purposes directly connected with the House and how much on other purposes.
I agree that there is a case for a change in the present arrangements. I argue that it is not right to change them in the direction suggested by this ill-

considered motion. No Select Committee has been appointed and there has been no discussion about this important constitutional innovation. The very fact that the subject has not gone to a Select Committee and has not been discussed is a danger signal, to say nothing of the shameful way in which the motion was originally introduced to the House. In view of the weight of speeches against the proposal, I hope that the Minister will concede that there is a case for helping minority parties to perform their democratic functions, but let us have another look at it, let us send it to a Select Committee, and let us see precisely what the problem is so that we can strengthen the power of Parliament and not strengthen further the powers of the executive and its Front Bench alternative.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: In opposing the motion, I do not wish to dwell at length on the important issue of principle which has been touched upon by many hon. and right hon. Members. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the principle of compulsorily requiring the taxpayer to pay for that which he may abhor and certainly does not consent to.
For me politics is about idealism and principles or it is about nothing. Some of us may be able to show, hopefully, our idealism by coming to this House. Others may show it by working in their wards or streets. But the only way in which many citizens of this country can show their idealism is to make small contributions to the party of their choice. If this motion is passed, ordinary people in little streets throughout the country will say, "Why bother, why should I contribute? The State will cough up. Why should I do without my packet of fags and why should I make a small contribution? "0ne more blow will he struck by the State against the idealism and the decency of the ordinary person. The situation will be worse than that. Politicians will be brought further into contempt in the eyes of the ordinary person.
Why does this motion arise? As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) says, it arises for two reasons. The first is the incidence of inflation. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of the


politicians. Having created that inflation, they say that Opposition parties hit by it should be safeguarded against it, again by the unfortunate taxpayer.
Secondly, this motion arises because Opposition parties have become unpopular.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Not just Opposition parties.

Mr. Budgen: All parties have become unpopular. So it is said, "All right, then we are unpopular, let us extract it from the taxpayer ".
The increasing gulf between the parties and the people will only increase as a result of these proposals.
I want to mention a point which has not yet been made. I note with interest that these proposals are based upon the performance of the parties in the preceding election. One way in which the balance of power changes in a democracy is that after a General Election the electorate consider the performance of the various parties and, according to their approval or disapproval of the parties, so they pay up. In this way they either prepare the party of their choice for the next General Election or withdraw their support from the party they once supported. However, these proposals will fossilise the political parties in the position they held at the preceding election. To that extent the motion is undemocratic.
For all these reasons, these proposals strike at an important part of the principle of democracy. Most hon. Members are here for deep idealistic reasons. I believe that the citizens of this country also play a part in political activity, for deep idealistic reasons. As we say in the Black Country, they like to be able to put their money where their mouth is. This motion stops them. It says that the State —the Big Brother—will take over this deeply idealistic contribution which each of them wishes to make to the party of his choice.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has talked a lot of rubbish. We might as well say that because public funds are used to pay for the books in the Library rather than having a collect-

ing box in the Central Lobby it follows that the public feel that they can do nothing by subscription to assist the political parties

Mr. Powell: This is the House of Commons Library. It is not a party library.

Mr. Cunningham: I sympathise with that point. The point I am making is apt to the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West
A number of hon. Members have objected to the idea of using public funds to provide research assistance and other similar back-up help for hon. Members. I do not share that view at all. There is no ground upon which such a practice will discourage people from contributing towards political parties. For example, we give free postage for the distribution of election literature, so called. That does not prevent the major part of the costs of an election being met by voluntary contribution.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In that instance everyone is treated alike. They are not specially selected, as will be the case with this motion because the power of patronage will mean that it is just to the chosen few.

Mr. Cunningham: If I could be allowed to continue with my speech, I will deal with the points which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have raised.
I apologise in advance to the Minister because I shall be unable to stay for his reply. I want to put one or two specific questions to him and I shall read his answers, if it is possible for him to give any, with interest.
It has been suggested that the cut-off figure of £150,000 for any one party is a modest figure, given costs these days. That figure would provide for a staff of 50 receiving salaries between £2,500 and £8,000 a year, with ratios as between the higher and lower levels which I believe would exist in a well-furnished party office. A staff of 50 for an Opposition party office is grotesquely large and does not merit the word "modest ".
Secondly—and this harks back to the point made by the hon Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—what happens if there is a splinter party of 10 hon.


Members from a large party? Presumably that party would receive assistance only on the basis of the £500 per seat There can be no additional element in respect of the rest.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thought I made a rather different point. If half of a party re-labels itself, it can avoid the £150,000 limit—the hon. Gentleman can do the arithmetic for himself—using the formula in the motion.

Mr. Cunningham: I cannot see a party dividing itself into party A and party B just for the sake of getting £150,000. I think my case is right.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: On a point of information—

Mr. Cunningham: I do not have any information. I am asking my questions and I shall express my views when I come to them. This motion is in terms of Opposition parties. What about a small party which supports the Government all the time? We do not have a party—although we are grateful for the help of Plaid Cymru—which supports the governing party the whole time. According to this motion I think I am right in saying that the SDLP is not a party because it has only one Member.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: By the terms of the motion the SDLP is a party. On a constitutional point, a party that may vote with the Government but is not part of the Government is accounted here as part of the Opposition.

Mr. Cunningham: I will read that sentence with great interest. We must be forgiven if we see very much more of one SDLP Member in this House and not perhaps as much of the other. That answer raises the question: what about a single-man party? Is there any reason why the first Member of the SDLP in this House should need less support as a single-man party here than as a two-man party, a five-man party, or a ten-man party? I would say not.

Mr. Lawson: There is only one Member in that party.

Mr. Cunningham: We are considering today only one aspect of a package of measures which ought to be considered

together. There is, first, the question of assistance to political parties outside the House, for their general activities. There is, second, the business of assistance to parties within the House, which we are considering now. Third, there is the question of assistance to individual Members for research or whatever. Fourth, there is the question of the communal facilities of the House, such as the Library. I cannot see that it is right to consider one of these and take a decision upon it in isolation from the rest.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the whole package ought to have been referred to one Committee of the House, probably not the Procedure Committee but a special Committee to deal with the whole business. We should then take a decision in the light of its recommendations, although not necessarily accepting them. Parliamentary democracy in this country does not in practice depend on the main Opposition party, or all of the Opposition parties added together—except for brief periods such as occurred last summer and which are unlikely to be repeated except once every few decades.
Parliamentary democracy in this country works, when it does—which is rare—when back benchers on the Government side take independent decisions. My principal grievances against this measure is that it provides assistance to those people whose criticism of the Government ought to be well-informed—and it is a good thing if it is—but whose criticism of the Government will not matter unless there are sufficient back benchers on both sides of the House to carry the day against the Government. I agree with the implication of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that the assistance ought not to be provided to political groups as such.
I am absolutely in favour of increasing the amount of assistance given to Members as Members. If those Members choose to use that assistance—whether provided in cash or in kind—in a community, whether of party or sub-party groups, or whatever, that is a matter for them. I do not want, when my party is in opposition, the assistance which ought


to come in part to me to be going to my party leadership. Frankly, that does not assist me to do the job I was elected to do.
I shall not be voting against the motion, because I shall be at an important meeting in my constituency. If there were a chance of defeating the motion, which there is not, I would be here to vote against it. Since the Conservative Party is to vote for the motion—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? The debate has been heard mainly by the Parliamentary Secretary, although the Leader of the House was present for part of it. It simply is not conceivable that on a matter such as this, which concerns the House so intimately, the Government could proceed to force and carry a Division on the motion after a debate in which so much criticism has been made of the motion from all sides. I am assuming that the Parliamentary Secretary will have conveyed, or will convey, to his right hon. Friend the reasons why he cannot possibly, without affront to the House, proceed to force this motion through.

Mr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to me as the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Powell: Are you not a Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Fowler: Mr. Fowler: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We cannot have two interventions at the same time. The same rules apply to the Front Bench as to the back benches.

Mr. Cunningham: I am glad that my hon. Friend has established the fact that he is a Minister of State. I wish that the right hon. Member for Down, South and others would not use phrases such as "force this motion through" and "free vote" which carry the implication that no measures pass this House except by the voluntary votes of hon. Members. This motion will be approved because not sufficient people are here to vote against it or because it is clearly indicated that a majority will vote for it, so that there is no point in voting against it. In the

light of what has been said, before I absent myself, I shall make careful inquiries about how the principal Opposition party is to vote. I certainly would not want my absence to prevent the killing of this motion.
I would prefer assistance to be provided to individual Members and for them to use those funds, either individually or in groups, by parties or otherwise, to provide the assistance they require. It is a rather difficult business to provide the kind of assistance which an individual Member needs to carry out his duties effectively. In my view very great help could be provided by an extention of the facilities of the House of Commons Library. The Library does a great deal for Members. Any weaknesses in its service are due not to any lack of will or helpfulness on the part of its staff but to the small size of that staff.
It amounts to this, that each member of the staff of the Library has a schedule of work, a policy area, which is too wide for him or her to be able to keep completely abreast of. The result is that when a Member goes to the Library for assistance the assistant to whom he speaks is normally obliged actually to do some research to find out the answers.
The situation ought to be that there are sufficient staff in the Library for each member of that staff to be in effect a consultant, having the time to keep abreast of events so that off-the-cuff answers can be given and many papers written with the minimum of research. If that were done—it would involve probably quadrupling the research staff of the Library—a large part, but not all, of the assistance that Members require could be provided in that communal and non-political fashion.
Then we should provide to individual Members financial assistance, whether in the form of cash or nomination rights, for people to receive salaries for research purposes. It does not matter which of the two, but I prefer the second. The facilities should be provided to individual Members and not to political groups.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: Although I see certain merits in these proposals, I feel that the backing of shadow Ministers, of whatever party, is inadequate. They are no match for the


Ministers, backed by the strength, influence and power of the Civil Service.
On the whole, I do not feel that Members of Parliament need more in the way of research assistance and so on, since the Library fulfils the needs of most Members of Parliament on a day-to-day basis.
Political parties always need more money. It is no secret that the Conservative Party is not flush. In the long run, if the parties deserve the money they will obtain it, and if they do not deserve it they will not obtain it.
On balance, I am against these proposals, despite what I have just said, because I agree that to some extent they represent the thin end of the wedge. The increase in power of the State under every Government since the Second World War has been continuous, and there is a danger that we shall all become State pensioners. This measure may be a step in that direction. I believe that there is a danger in the proposals, whether we are talking about supporting Opposition parties inside or outside the House. I realise that today we are speaking mainly of strengthening the party leaderships further at the expense of the back benchers, and I know that we are already some way on the road to presidential rule in this country.
West Germany provides the most concrete overseas example. I was interested to read that one-third of the revenue of the West German political parties is provided by the State, which illustrates my fear that the political parties may become too dependent on the power of the State and on subventions from the taxpayer. When aid was first provided to the West German political parties, it was little used. However, the demand for that money expanded steadily when it was seen to be available from the Exchequer. By all means let us study the experience of other countries, including West Germany.
We should treat this proposal with some respect and not come to a rapid conclusion. The proposal is a good one, but needs to be thought about seriously before we approve it.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the debate It is sig-

nificant that this debate has been ill-attended, because I regard these matters as of great importance to the functioning of Parliament and Government.
Although the Government may well be motivated by the best reasons in the matter, I think the proposal has been ill-thought-out. I object—as I suspect do many other back benchers—to the way in which birth was given to this idea. I was not consulted as to the form that this would take. The proposal was presented to me, and, I suspect, to the majority of hon. Members, as a fait accompli—decided somehow, somewhere, behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, between the two Front Benches. I constantly oppose that kind of get-together because it immediately arouses the suspicions of back benchers. This is essentially what the proceedings of the House are about. The conflict between the Front Bench establishment, whether Opposition or Government, does not matter.
I believe that back benchers, whether Government or Opposition, are labouring under considerable disadvantages both inside and outside the House. I do not disagree with the principle of making money available. In principle there should be a State subvention to enable the Government machine to work more efficiently. We obtain our Government machinery on the cheap. The cult of the amateur dies hard. However, the remedy does not lie in strengthening the hands of the official Opposition—it lies in strengthening the hands of back bench Members.
We talk about the grass roots. "Participation" is an "in" word. Parliament and its Members, both individually and collectively, have become alienated from the rest of the country because we do not have a professional way of dealing with the everyday problems of our constituents.
Permit me to suggest the way in which I should like to see this money spent, if it is made available. Most Members of Parliament spend the weekends in their constituencies holding surgeries and visiting on a shoe-string budget. I depend entirely on voluntary effort for that kind of work, or else I pay for it from the money I receive. I do not think the electors would oppose the provision, in each constituency, of an office for the Member of Parliament and of one or two full-time


staff who could take individual cases through the week. The Member of Parliament could hold his surgery at that office and the full-time staff would prepare his case list. Constituents would know that an office was available for the Member of Parliament and the local councillors. In other words, it would be the equivalent of the local ombudsman's office in each constituency. I consider that to be more desirable than the Government proposals.
The great danger in these proposals is that they provide an element of patronage in the hands of party leaders. A kind of party political Civil Service will be created in the House which might have nothing to do with the individual Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) mentioned this in his interventions. I did not hear his speech, but I agree with the gist of that.

Mr. David Steel: The constituency facilities for a Member of Parliament just described are already supplied, in the case of myself and of many Members of other parties, by the local political parties out of voluntary funds. To a certain extent we are supporting a public facility with voluntary funds and I think that it is therefore not unreasonable that the machinery in Parliament should be slightly more dependent on public support.

Mr. Hamilton: One need not be exclusive to the other. The voluntary provision can be provided in the constituency, while there can be a State provision in Parliament, or there can be a combination of both. If only a limited amount of public money is available I should prefer a semi-professional, full-time organisation, however small, in each constituency for the sitting Member, of whatever party, so that the people would know where to go with their complaints and would not have to wait until the weekend or until their Member visited the constituency. There would be constant contact between the office and the Member of Parliament throughout the year.
In view of the reservations which have been expressed by most speakers so far, the Government might well refer the matter and its related problems to a Select Committee, rather than bulldoze

the measure through by counting on the apathy and indifference of the majority of Members.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am opposed to the motion, because it is the thin end of a nasty big wedge. If, as the Leader of the House has said, it is intended to strengthen parliamentary institutions, it is like strengthening and fattening a calf before the slaughter.
So far, we have heard three speeches in favour, including those by the Leader of the House, a Member of the Liberal Party and a Member of the Scottish National Party. None of them has put forward a convincing argument that this money must come from the taxpayer. That is the point. No one disputes that the political parties in this House are in need of greater facilities for research and for conducting parliamentary business generally. But those facilities are obtainable. They are available through existing machinery, such as the Library. Why should not the facilities of the Library be extended? Why should not we have more experts and other staff in the Library to assist us as parliamentarians? That is a question which should be taken up, and I have no doubt that it will be following the espousal of that cause by so many hon. Members who have taken part in this debate.
In any event, must the taxpayer fork out for these extra sums which appear to be required by certain political parties? The example given on behalf of the Scottish National Party was most revealing. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said that under these proposals he would get £9,000—

Mr. Henderson: Not personally.

Mr. Stanbrook: Of course not personally. If what is being said is that for want of £9,000 the Scottish National Party cannot do its job properly in this House, what sort of party can it be? How can it deserve any support at the polls?

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Stanbrook: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have promised to detain the House for only a couple of minutes or so. The party which claims to represent a large proportion of the Scottish population says that it


cannot raise £9,000 by its own efforts. That is anathema to the spirit of democracy.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude. My party, like any other in this House, could do a more effective job if it had the necessary resources.

Mr. Stanbrook: For £9,000, SNP Members could do a more effective job. Where are they to get that £9,000? Why should it come from the taxpayer? Where is the argument that the taxpayer must pay when he may well be opposed to the SNP?
It might be of some assistance if I told the House what I consider to be the proper method of raising funds and illustrated it by reference to my own constituency.
The Orpington Conservative Association raises £10,000 a year, which it spends entirely within the constituency, on political activities, including financing the agent and the staff of the office. That sum is raised by 42 branches, 25 of them being wards and village branches, 14 being women's branches and three being Young Conservative branches. It is raised in small amounts at jumble sales, coffee mornings, raffles, and collections at meetings, and through subscriptions and small donations. It involves political activity throughout the constituency, during the year, by some 7,000 members of the association. In that way, they raise political support and, for me at election times, 26,000 votes.

Mr. William Hamilton: Look what they have got.

Mr. Stanbrook: As the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) says, look at what they have got. I believe that they are very pleased with what they have got.
This is the healthy way in which funds can be raised for political purposes. So long as funds are raised by political parties in that way, our democracy is healthy and safe from tyranny. Once we start accepting money from the State and forcing the taxpayer to make up our deficiencies in fund raising, we are on the slope towards tyranny.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: We have had a most interesting and enthralling debate, even if the House has not at all times been packed with thoroughly interested and engrossed participants. Had it been possible for the Leader of the House to remain with us all the time, I do not suppose that he could have been other than disappointed by the ingratitude with which his open-handedness has been received on all sides of the House, especially his own.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is no longer with us. For that reason, I shall not pursue his arguments very far. But I think that my hon. Friend was wrong in discerning a new principle here. It has been done. Whether the practice is good or evil is another matter. Salaries have been paid to Leaders of the Opposition and Opposition Chief Whips. Help has been given in the past in posting the Whip, and so on. It is not a wholly new principle.
I was very struck by the deep-found distrust expressed by Government supporters of their own Front Bench—

Mr. William Hamilton: All Front Benches—the right hon. Gentleman's especially.

Mr. Peyton: I have never done any harm to anyone. I was tempted into the belief that Government supporters were taking this rather innocent proposal as an opportunity to air their profound mistrust of the ordinarily rather nasty manoeuvres in which their Front Bench engage from time to time. However, I am sorry that they chose this occasion to do so. There are other occasions when their right hon. Friends merit a condemnation which they do not get from their supporters.
I hope that the little manoeuvre that we have seen today—

Mr. George Cunningham: Get on with it.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give me advice, I hope that he will get to his feet to do so.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman get on with the merits of the


proposal and not treat us to all the irrelevant stuff that he is mouthing at the moment?

Mr. Peyton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that. He promised us that he was going back to Islington. If he has nothing better than that to say, I hope he will expedite his departure.
It was interesting to hear my old friend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) announce that he was not an establishment man. I do not know whether the Leader of the House was here at the time. If he was, he must have taken it as an announcement of fairly shattering news. Anyhow, we acknowledge that we were already dimly familiar with it and that the hon. Member for Newham. North-West is not an establishment man.
I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wandered off into the mists of distortion and hyperbole in condemning this modest little proposal.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) ate his cake and had it, too. He disliked the proposal very much, but he was prepared to take the money.

Mr. Powell: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's contention that in this House hon. Members who argue for or against the wisdom of a measure should refrain from doing so according to whether they or their parties might or might not benefit?

Mr. Peyton: I made no such suggestion. I merely paraphrased what the hon. Member for Antrim, South said, namely, that he saw objection to the proposal in principle but was prepared to take the money. That is a perfectly fair paraphrase of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is just a possibility that I was endeavouring to persuade the House to reject the motion?

Mr. Peyton: I never denied that. However, the hon. Gentleman did not go dangerously far down the road in his attempt to do so. I was merely paraphrasing his remarks—not unfairly, I thought.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) was clear. He gave

the proposal a measure of, by that time, much needed welcome.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman), whom I very much miss here at the moment, followed the lead of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and dived into hyperbole with comments about pursefuls of gold being thrown about and extensions of patronage which, quite rightly, he found abhorrent. Then he was shocked when I said that if he was against extensions of Government patronage he should take the opportunities which will be presented to him in the near future of opposing many of the measures brought before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Industry. The same remark can be applied to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), also not here now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made a powerful speech in which he made some fairly rough comments about these poor political parties, of which we are all members. It is one thing to disapprove of political parties—

Mr. Lawson: I do not disapprove of political parties.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend may not disapprove of them, but he said that parties were hard up because people had become fed up with them. I hope that I am not misquoting him in any way. My hon. Friend cherishes, as I do, the voluntary spirit.
I think that my hon. Friend got this matter out of context. I believe that it was put in the right proportions by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman with my support, nor do I want to embarrass myself overmuch by being at odds with my hon. Friend. However, I do not want to get too close to the hon. Gentleman. Rightly, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles pointed out that this is a question of extending existing assistance to support the fabric of Opposition. We must dwell upon the fact that over the years—at least since I have been a Member of this House—the means of support available to the Opposition have dwindled steadily as against the steady and, to my mind, loathsome growth in the


power of the Government. We must have some means of redressing the balance.
I observe, in parenthesis, that the constant reference to research—that this proposal, if carried, would finance extensive programmes of Front Bench research—is a euphemism of the highest order. I believe that the number of research programmes for which we will be financed if the proposal is carried will be very few indeed. It will enable political parties, or those who occupy a Front Bench or other capacity in their parties, to answer letters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is far too concerned about jobs. I believe that he is wrong to worry about this modest proposal compared with the number of major jobs constantly generated as a result of his right hon. Friends' policies. I wish that he would apply his mind to the major dangers instead of getting upset about tiny questions like this one.
We should bear in mind that the motion would only extend in a fairly modest way the assistance which is already given. Anyone who gets the idea that we are breaking wholly new ground and introducing a totally new principle is quite mistaken. We are not concerned with activities outside Parliament. Therefore, no new ground is being broken, nor is any principle being breached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) got a bit carried away by talking about politics being idealism or nothing. I do not think that ideals are very much in danger as a result of this modest proposal. It will enable Opposition parties to do their jobs with slightly greater efficiency and to perform tasks the ability to perform which the public will generally take for granted.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has paid me the compliment of not commenting on my speech. Therefore, I presume that he finds little fault with it. Does he agree that there is a distinction between the present system and what is proposed? If all we are doing is extending the present system, surely we could extend it without this motion. The

motion brings in cash instead of the kind which at the moment is provided.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman must pursue his argument with himself. I had not intended to dwell at length on his speech because I could not think of anything interesting to say about it. As I understood it, his main desire was that the whole question should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, of which the hon. Gentleman is an ornament.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, in a moment of candour, that my admiration for the Select Committee on Procedure does not sweep me off my feet. If I wish to solve a difficult problem, probably the last thing that would occur to me would be to deliver it to the Select Committee on Procedure. I do not wish to be unfair to the Select Committee, any more than to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—it is so sad—has already accepted my invitation and gone. What I wish to say to him, despite the abruptness of his interruption during my remarks, is that his comment, that parliamentary democracy works only when Government back benchers take independent action, is characteristic of someone who has shown a measure of courage in this House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present to hear me say that.
I do not wish to prolong my remarks. These relatively modest proposals are designed to cover activities which most people outside this House would take absolutely for granted.
I accept that all increases in demand upon the public, particularly at this time, are very unwelcome. We are concerned to make the ordinary mechanics of Parliament—no more than that; nothing grandiose at all—a little less difficult than they might otherwise become for the Opposition.
On this occasion I share the view of the Leader of the House that, when dealing with matters inside the House of Commons, it is not an unreasonable requirement or hope that the Opposition should have that modest equipment which will redeem them from being sentenced to total inefficiency.

6.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): This afternoon we have heard what are, to me at least, some novel constitutional doctrines. If the debate has served that purpose only, it has had a purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that it was disgraceful that the Government should bulldoze this measure through on a free vote. I think that I must have a word with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and suggest that if he wishes to deal with some of the difficulties that he has had in the past he should give us a free vote on all measures, because it would appear that he will then get remarkable loyalty from the benches behind him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central was not unique in advancing the doctrine that, in essence, this House was essentially about a conflict between the Front Benches and the back benches collectively, but that, to me, is a novel constitutional doctrine. I should he second to none in my defence of the rights and importance of back benchers and their views in this House, but the notion that the principal purpose of this House is to embody in physical form a conflict between the Front Benches and the back benches is one which I think most hon. Members will resist.
I agree with hon. Members who have suggested that we should all be concerned to strengthen the position of back benchers, but hon. Members who spoke in this sense cannot have been unaware that the Boyle Committee is examining the question of hon. Member's salaries and other perks.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Government are not rushing that through.

Mr. Fowler: It has been suggested that, unlike that measure, this measure is being rushed through. Yet it was included in the Gracious Speech in March last year. Last year my right hon. Friend made two statements in the House about it. It has been part of the Government's programme for a year. What do my hon. Friends mean when they say that we are rushing it through?
It has been said that the motion has been introduced in a shameful way—but

it has been on the Order Paper since the beginning of January.

Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to something that I said. I was referring not to today but to the first time that the motion appeared on the Order Paper, immediately after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Fowler: It is one thing to object at the time that a motion appears on the Order Paper, perhaps at short notice. When the Government accede to the request of hon. Members that the motion should be withdrawn and it is introduced again well over two months later, it is absurd to protest again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that there must be back-bench resentment of this measure because it strengthens the executive. I note the view of my hon. Friend that the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, or the Liberal Party may one day form the executive. Some of my hon. Friends seemed to be in a remarkable state of depression about their prospects. Others were in a state of remarkable euphoria because they seemed to think that the motion was designed only to aid the Conservative Party, and that there might not come a day when the Labour Party would be in opposition. I wished that I shared either that euphoria or the belief that the SNP would form the Government of the United Kingdom. I share neither belief.
My hon. Friend argued that there would be back-bench resentment because this measure could only strengthen the executive. The implication of his argument seemed to be that it would be perfectly all right if the same sum of money were divided among the boys, but that if it were provided for research assistance to ensure an effective Opposition in the House and one step was taken —not the only one which might be necessary—to redress the balance between executive and Legislature which has tipped steadily in favour of the executive in the past century and the money was not divided among the boys, it was an objectionable measure. Not only can I not share that view; the Government must respect it.
The whole purpose of this measure is to strengthen democracy. It may well be


that we must take other measures—perhaps in respect of devolution to certain parts of the United Kingdom and in support of back-bench Members. We may wish to consider what we should do about aiding parties outside, but I must reject the notion that we are discussing a precedent which necessarily determines the result of the investigations of the committee which will be established to examine that question. To say that there may be other things that we should do and therefore we should do nothing until we can do them all simultaneously is an absurd argument.
It has been suggested that the money involved would be better spent, perhaps, on the Railways Board—that was the view of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs)—or on the social services, education, or something else. But the amount of money we spend on the social services, education and the transport system, and the control exercised over it, turn equally on the maintenance of a viable democracy, and this motion is designed to strengthen the democratic system.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) wondered whether it was not odd, or, perhaps even out of order, that we should make provision for assistance to Opposition parties by a motion rather than a Bill. The proposals in the motion, if the House agrees to them, will in due course be given legislative effect in an Appropriation Bill and there will be no need for separate legislation. There is nothing odd about this.
The House has long followed this procedure when authorising various forms of payment to its Members in connection with their duties as Members. The clearest example—one could not have a clearer example—is that of the payment of Members' salaries. In 1911 the House agreed, on a motion, that a salary should be paid. No special Bill was introduced, but subsequently the necessary provision was included in the Appropriation Act 1911. That procedure has been followed on a number of occasions since, and every Member present will be familiar with it because it has been followed in respect of the payment of the secretarial allowance, which was introduced in 1969 and changed last year, and in authorising

assistance to Members attending the European Parliament.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This motion is concerned with payment not to Members but to political parties. The matter would be better dealt with by a Bill than by a process which has not been used in the past for paying bodies other than Members.

Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The purpose of the motion is not to give assistance to political parties per se it is for certain political parties in the House and, as far as I know, the parties in the House are comprised of hon. Members. Therefore, the position is exactly as I have suggested: this is a motion for giving assistance to certain categories of Members.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I think that he has had his fair share of the debate. He made a rather long speech.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) asked two specific questions. First, what would De the provision for inflation? It is the Government's intention that what is being voted today should be examined from time to time in the light of inflation and other questions to see whether it is still the appropriate arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was true that the motion was merely an extension of the general principle, which has been long established and manifested in the support already accorded to the Opposition, for the better working of Parliament. It may surprise some hon. Members to learn that the sum spent in salaries for the Leader of the Opposition and for certain other Front Bench Members of the Opposition in this House and in another place is already £27,000 per annum, and the much larger figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman for general support given to the Opposition is broadly correct.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some of us who were Members before my hon. Friend opposed that, too.

Mr. Fowler: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that there are people who work in the Opposition's


Whips' Office who, in terms of the way in which they are paid, are civil servants.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House or anybody else. I hope that he will make it clear that in the case of this Opposition, as with the last, the only people who receive any money from public funds, apart from their salaries as Members of Parliament, are the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Fowler: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is done by a Bill.

Mr. Fowler: At all events, I believe that the general point is established, that what we are doing today is not a

departure from all that has been done in the past; it is merely building upon what has been long-established practice in this House—to strengthen democracy through strengthening the power of the Opposition as against the executive. I hope the House will long continue to tread that road, because it seems to me the way to better government as well as to more effective parliamentary democracy. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Peyton: I ought to amend what I said. There are, of course, two other Whips in this place.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 159.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Skinner, Dennis


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spearing, Nigel


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence,Ivan
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Tebbit, Norman


Cryer, Bob
Macfarlane, Neil
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Dunlop, John
Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Marten, Neil
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Eden Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol



Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Moate, Roger
Mr. Arthur Lewis and


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.




 NOES


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfield, Les


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Baker, Kenneth
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edge, Geoff
Janner, Greville


Bean, R. E.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
John, Brynmor


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eyre, Reginald
Lamond, James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bishop, E. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luard, Evan


Boardman, H.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luce, Richard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacCormick, Iain


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fox, Marcus
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Brittan, Leon
Freud, Clement
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madden, Max


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carmichael Neil
Griffiths, Eldon
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cartwright, John
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Millan, Bruce


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Mrs Millie (Illford N)


Corbett, Robin
Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cordle, John H.
Higgins, Terence L.
Moyle, Roland


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Neave, Airey


Cronin, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newens, Stanley




Noble, Mike
Scott, Nicholas
Tomlinson, John


O'Halloran, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Osborn, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Ovenden, John
Shersby, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pardoe, John
Sims, Roger
Ward, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Watkinson, John


Penhaligon, David
Snape, Peter
Watt, Hamish


Perry, Ernest
Stallard, A. W.
Weatherill, Bernard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John
Welsh, Andrew


Phipps, Dr Colin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Whitehead, Phillip


Radice, Giles
Stoddart, David
Whitlock, William


Reid, George
Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strang, Gavin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ryman, John
Thompson, George
Mr. John Ellis and


Sainsbury, Tim
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Dovon)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 47.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[7.03 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Fox, Marcus
Perry, Ernest


Ashton, Joe
Freud, Clement
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
George, Bruce
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gilbert, Dr John
Radice, Giles


Baker, Kenneth
Ginsburg, David
Raison, Timothy


Bean, R. E.
Graham, Ted
Reid, George


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hayhoe, Barney
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Douglas
Ryman, John


Bishop, E. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Sandelson, Neville


Boardman, H.
Hooley, Frank
Scott, Nicholas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooson, Emlyn
Shersby, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Les
Silverman, Julius


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sims, Roger


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Snape, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Janner, Greville
Stallard, A. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stanley, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carmichael Neil
Lamond, James
Stewart. Rt. Hon M. (Fulham)


Cartwright.John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lipton, Marcus
Stott, Roger


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Luce, Richard
Strang, Gavin


Concannon, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
MacCormick, Iain
Thompson, George


Cordle, John H.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tomlinson, John


Cronin, John
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ward, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Meacher, Michael
Watt, Hamish


Dempsey, James
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Dunwoody. Mrs Gwyneth
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Edge, Geoff
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Whitehead, Phillip


English, Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Moyle, Roland
Wigley, Dafydd


Eyre, Reginald
Neave, Airey
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fairgrieve, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Ovenden, John



Fisher, Sir Nigel
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Pardoe, John
Mr. John Ellis and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Penhaligon, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Farr, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crowder, F. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Doig Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bradford Rev Robert
Dunlop, John
Goodhew, Victor


Clegg, Walter
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Eden Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)




Hurd, Douglas
Mayhew, Patrick
Spearing, Nigel


Jessel, Toby
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lawrence, Ivan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Macfarlane, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo



Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marten, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Arthur Lewis and


Mather, Carol
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

1. That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that as from 1st January 1975 provision shall be made for financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:

2. That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:—

£500 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £150,000:

3. That it shall be a condition of qualification for such assistance that a party must either have at least two Members elected to the

House as members of that party at the preceding General Election, or that it has one such Member and received at least 150,000 votes at that Election:

4. That any party wishing to claim such assistance shall make to the Accounting Officer of the House a statement of the facts on which this claim is based:

5. That the cost of this provision shall be borne on the House of Commons Vote:

6. That parties making claims under this provision shall be required to certify to the Accounting Officer of the House that the expenses in respect of which assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business:

7. That claims under these arrangements shall be made quarterly, and that the annual maxima shall be applicable to claims made in respect of expenses incurred during any one calendar year.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) I must point out that I already know of 32 Members who are seeking to catch my eye in this debate.

7.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): There has been a great deal of anxiety and concern powerfully expressed over the past few weeks regarding the future of the textile industry. It is appropriate that the House should now have a full chance to debate this critical situation. In my opening speech I shall comment on the present state of the industry, on what the Government have done to date to assist the industry and on future Government policy.
At present the industry is in the grip of a major downturn in the textile cycle, which began in about the middle of 1973 and which steepened considerably in the last months of 1974. To translate the facts into people, the British Textile Confederation, which represents both unions and employers in major sections of the industry, has told us that in February it estimates that 150,000 of the industry's work force in Great Britain of 830,000 operatives were on short time—namely, up to 80 per cent. of workers in wool textiles, 60 per cent. of Lancashire's spinners and weavers and 40 per cent. of the workers in man-made fibres. It estimates that the number of workers made redundant by mid-February was 7,000 to 8,000. A number of firms have gone out of business, including 12 mills in Lancashire. Several more firms have closed factories or parts of factories. Those are clear signs of a downturn in demand unprecedented since the war.
It is equally important to recognise that there are other measures of demand which present rather a different picture. Perhaps I should point them out. Retail sales of clothing remained at a pretty constant level in the last quarter of 1974 and in January 1975. Despite that, manufacturers suffered the drop in demand and short-time working increased,

but if retail sales continue at that level the position must be reversed, though there can be no guarantee that British textile mills will ever meet all of the renewed demand.
Another recent indicator has been the figures for United Kingdom production in January of man-made fibres. I understand that the British Man-Made Fibres Federation feels that the 21 per cent. increase in output in January 1975 over December 1974 suggests that the bottom of the production trough may have been reached and that the destocking process may be ending. The federation also notes an upturn in export demand. However, I fully accept that the January figures of some 42 million kilos is well below the 1974 monthly average of some 52 million kilos. One swallow certainly does not make a summer. The position of future demand prospects over the next few months is not clear cut.
The central cause of our difficulties is the combination of the level of import demand in conjunction with the collapse of demand at home and abroad. It is important to recognise that the position of imports is by no means homogeneous and varies significantly. The import figures for January 1975 show imports increasing over those of January 1974 in cotton yarn, man-made fibre, continuous filament yarn and man-made fibre cloth, stockings, outer-wear and woven shorts. Imports, however, decreased in cotton cloth, knitted cloth, underwear, knitted shirts, overalls and trousers. I acknowledge that for some products the January 1975 imports have shown an increase compared with the trend of the last quarter of 1974.
Probably the most effective way of presenting this general picture is to look at imports as a percentage of home consumption. In other words, the import penetration of the United Kingdom market in cotton yarn has almost doubled from 14½ per cent. to 26 per cent. in 1974, but in other sectors it has marginally declined. In certain specific sectors such as underwear, trousers and overalls it has fallen significantly.
What conclusions can be drawn from the figures? As they stand they do not generally portray rampant imports increasing at a phenomenal rate to the


detriment of the United Kingdom industry. They show that imports even with the sharp decline in home demand, have largely maintained their buoyancy the increasing expense of British jobs.
The British Textile Confederation believes that the high level of imports reached in 1974 can no longer be absorbed by the United Kingdom market without serious disruption of the British textile and clothing industries. Imports of some products actually declined in the last quarter of 1974 and in January 1975, but the Confederation considers that the current level of these imports is now more damaging to the United Kingdom industry in its present depressed state than the higher import level of mid-1974, when the industry was working at full capacity.
What have the Government done about these imports? As the GATT arrangements for textiles allow, we are ready to use safeguards as far as and as long as necessary to prevent disruption. We have repeatedly taken action in this sense. I ask the House to consider briefly the record of present Government and previous Governments on the protection they have given to the textile industry, and principally to the Lancashire cotton textile industry.
In January 1972, despite a recommendation in the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study that tariff protection would be sufficient for the industry, the then Government decided both to retain the previous quota system and, in addition, to impose a tariff on cotton yarn, cotton cloth and made-ups from the Commonwealth. Thus the Lancashire industry had protection against low-prices through the tariff and against unlimited access by continuing quantitative restrictions. In addition the woollen, knitwear and clothing industries had tariff protection against non-Commonwealth and non-EFTA suppliers.
Then in 1972 the previous Conservative administration accepted the Lancashire industry's case for protection on woven polyester-cotton fabric and made-ups and introduced quantitative restrictions on these textiles. This introduced the principle of quota protection for non-cotton textiles as well as cotton textiles. When we returned to Government last year it

was to the multi-fibre agreement to which we turned.
After some very tough negotiations the EEC Council of Ministers approved on 15th October 1974 a Community textile policy, the so-called burden-sharing policy. Under this policy, over the years ahead, we can expect the other Community member countries to catch up with us in the access we have given in the past to developing countries. These countries will in turn have a greater total market to go for than the United Kingdom market alone.
Where in the case of our traditional suppliers we have the greatest share within the EEC of textile imports, our growth rate will be reduced ½ per cent., whereas these EEC countries with a lower level of imports from the same sources will be expected to take a growth rate of as much as 50 per cent. In the cases where the other EEC member countries import more from a low-cost country than we do, we shall be expected to take correspondingly more. The traditional structure of international trade in textiles suggests that we shall probably do better out of burden-sharing.
The first occasion on which we had recourse to these provisions was in relation to the imports of cotton yarn from Greece and Turkey, covered by the EEC's associate agreements to which we are party through our membership of the EEC. As part of the original entry terms negotiated by the previous Conservative Government we liberalised yarn imports from Greece and Turkey, among other Mediterranean associates, from 1st April 1973. From a low base in 1973 imports from those countries multiplied rapidly during 1974. After our invitation to the industry in July last year to submit a case to us on this sector its case was sent to my Department on 12th November. I announced on 20th December the imposition of import licensing on imports of cotton yarn from Greece and Turkey with effect, happily enough. from 25th December.
These dates are important. I have quoted them because I know that there is a feeling in Lancashire that the Government should have acted sooner, but our concern must be with all the industry, and we could not act until we received a submission from the BTC representing the


industry as a whole, not merely from individual sectors, because the knitting industry and some weavers were not in favour of restricting imports of cotton yarn because of shortages of supplies from Lancashire.
I must also add a word about the import of cotton yarn from our traditional low-cost suppliers, principally India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Cotton yarn is on the EEC's common liberalisation list, which means that it can be imported freely into all the original members of the Community. We have secured a derogation to restrict imports in line with the original intention. The figures in the derogation show a maximum level of imports of 20,000 tonnes in 1975 against 17,000 tonnes in 1974. However, increases in quota levels are not necessarily reflected in increases in actual imports. In 1974 India filled less than 50 per cent. of its cotton yarn quota and Hong Kong less than three-quarters.
The largest group of suppliers of cotton yarn to the United Kingdom in 1974 was the developed countries, not the traditional low-cost developing suppliers. In 1974, the developed countries sent us just under 15,000 tonnes compared with only 5,000 tonnes the year before.
Although I have said that quota coverage for United Kingdom textiles is already extensive, it is important to add that we shall soon be extending it to a substantial degree this year. We have agreed to join in seeking EEC restraints on knitwear, woven fabrics and made-ups of fabrics other than cotton and on spun synthetic yarn from the main South-East Asian suppliers. The Council of Ministers has approved the mandate for negotiations with Hong Kong, with which negotiations started on Monday, and the mandate for negotiations with South Korea. The Commission is preparing legislation to reflect the decisions made on Taiwan.
Although I regret the considerable delay in the implementation of these restraints it is important to note that they will eventually apply from 1st January this year. Quota protection is also given against imports of textiles from the Communist bloc and against textiles from Japan. We are nearing agreement with the other members of the EEC on the need to seek restraints under GATT on

imports from virtually all other significant low-cost suppliers.
I think that this shows an impressive record of concern for the industry which all too often has received scant acknowledgement.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Why does the Minister constantly define textiles as cotton and not talk about, particularly, woollen or worsted textiles? Hong Kong may not have fulfilled its quota in cottons, but it accounts for a third of all woollen imports.

Mr. Meacher: In my use of the word "textiles" I have taken account of the whole industry, but it is on the cotton yarn side that employment has been hardest hit, so it is not unreasonable to concentrate on that area.
There will now be few areas of the world where we do not impose some restrictions on the imports of textiles. We have a formidable barrage of actual restrictions. Hon. Members will not be able to identify any other private sector industry which has had such a history of protection or such an extensive level of present protection, which we are about to extend—

Mr. Dan Jones: Or such a level of industrial insecurity.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, as I now want to turn to future policy and to try to indicate the thinking which is designed to reduce what I readily acknowledge to be considerable insecurity at present.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I was anxious not to interrupt the Minister before he finished that section of his speech. Did he say earlier that he delayed applying for measures in one case because he was prepared to do so only if the whole industry or a large part of it supported an application? Was he then talking in the context of dumping? He was explaining the delay at the end of last year, and I believe that he said that he was prepared to consider an application for restraint on allegations of dumping only if the entire industry supported it. Is that what he said?

Mr. Meacher: Yes, substantially. I was referring to the consideration that we were asked to give to restraints on Greek and Turkish yarns. It is true


that some sectors of the industry had asked us to take action earlier in the year, but it is also true that other sectors did not wish us to take that action, and it was proper for the Government to wait for the industry as a whole, through its properly constituted bodies like the British Textile Confederation, to come to a general view. This was nothing to do with dumping. As soon as it came to a general view we acted on it speedily.
Turning to future policy, as a Government we have been looking, as several hon. Members have requested, first at the purchasing of imported textiles from the Government's point of view. The Government's own purchases of textiles amount at most to 2 per cent. of the industry's output. The purchasing Departments believe that more than 95 per cent. of their purchases are from British companies. It is not possible to say definitely how much of these purchases is made up of foreign yarn or cloth, but the direct purchases of textiles from abroad are absolutely minimal. We are examining our purchasing policy, but I doubt whether it can be used to make a major impact now on short-time work.
That major change could, however, he brought about if retailers and the industry itself were to change their buying habits. We know and the industry itself knows full well that a number of United Kingdom companies with their own spinning and weaving capacity are still importing large quantities of yarn and cloth even in the present difficult circumstances. There are also other makers-up, weavers and knitters who prefer to buy their cloth and yarn from abroad.
The amounts of cloth involved run certainly into tens of millions of yards and may be 100 million yards—much greater amounts than the Government purchase. It is scarcely an exaggeration, therefore, to say that the industry itself already holds within its own hands the opportunity to achieve, largely through its own initiatives, the holding back of substantial amounts of cheap yarn and woven cloth imports.

Mr. Adam Butler: That example is a reason for the need for an integrated approach to this problem. In the cases that the Minister is giving, I

believe that the main reason why such cheap yarns are being imported is that the manufacturer has to compete with the made-up article which is also being imported cheap. He must look at the whole picture.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic. I was about to come to this point, on which I do not think that the kind of sentiment that he has expressed is the last word. I acknowledge that the further processing of this yarn and cloth means jobs in the industry at a later point in the chain—

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the Minister announce anything about the importers?

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, and then he will see.
I acknowledge that the companies involved may consider that they have good private commercial reasons why they should so import, but I do not find acceptable the pressure now being put on the Government by some members of the BTEA to curb imports when some of the major companies, by buying imports rather than British processed material, prefer to give priority to their own commercial profits at the expense of a loss of British jobs. When this has led to short-time working on the scale that we have seen today, it is deeply disturbing and to be deeply deplored. At a time of so much increased capacity it cannot be said to be in the best long-term interest of the industry or of this country's economy that they continue to import massively in this way.
Therefore, I am appealing to them to stop selling the British textile industry short and to stop selling short British textile industry jobs. I strongly urge the industry to use the power that it has itself to make an effective and desperately needed contribution at present to reducing the level of imports. The Government themselves have been very active in urging on retailers and United Kingdom textile manufacturers the value of close co-operation between them in producing goods for the market place. In this connection, I would expect the retailers to see the wisdom, in terms of their own profits. of doing all that they can to protect the employment, and thus the purchasing power, of their customers in Britain.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I strongly support the plea that the Minister has just made. However, would he be prepared to give hon. Members—even if it were, for example, the all-party Committee on Textiles—some details and names of the firms to which he has lust referred so that we on the back benches can put some pressure outside the House on the companies involved? We do not have the information that the Minister has.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important suggestion, which I should like to consider very carefully. I am very attracted by it, and I should like to be as helpful as I can. However, he will know that the Government are impeded by considerations of commercial confidentiality as a result of which much of this information, but perhaps not all of it, has come into our possession. I shall look at the matter, and certainly I shall contact the hon. Gentleman if by any means it is possible to pursue his very helpful idea.
I turn now to the two proposals the British Textile Confederation has made to us. The first concerns the imposition of surveillance import licencing on all imports of man-made fibre yarns and fabrics imported from both developed and developing countries. We have decided to introduce a major extension of our existing import surveillance arrangements to cover man-made fibres and virtually all yarns and fabrics of all the main fibres. These arrangements will apply to imports from all non-Community sources. Full details of the arrangements will be published as soon as possible and they will become effective soon afterwards.
Briefly, this means that after the operative date importers of the goods covered will need an individual licence instead, as hitherto, of being able to import under the open general licence. The intention is that importers—and this will be particularly relevant to the problems which confront the industry from American exporters to us of certain textiles—should supply evidence of firm orders with overseas suppliers and give specified details of the goods, and on this basis licences will be issued freely on demand. These monitoring arrangements will provide us with prompt information on prices and quantities of narrowly defined imported goods as well as information about the forward intentions of importers.
I would stress that this decision should not he taken as a move towards introducing quantitative restrictions, but it will enable us to examine textile imports in close detail and consider in the light of the additional information what further action, if any, may need to be taken.

Dr. Hampson: Unless the Minister puts on physical restrictions how does he expect a retailer to turn down suits from Romania which cost £8 each?

Mr. Meacher: I am turning now to the whole issue of specific restrictions on imports. It is important that in the particular areas we have chosen, where there is not quota protection at present, we have the immediate up-to-date information on the basis of which we shall be able to act.
The BTC's second proposal is for import restrictions to cut by 20 per cent. the level of imports in 1974. This raises major and difficult implications for Government policy. The BTC describes this proposal as an emergency measure designed to deal with the crisis conditions in the textile industry. It considers that the British textile industry is peculiarly vulnerable to imports because our channels of distribution and the retail industry are so highly developed and concentrated—as they are. It believes that British textile companies cannot continue to operate for long at present levels of activity. The companies' resources are being eaten away and their ability to resume normal working seriously impaired. With a reduced cash flow, even firms with relatively high liquid reserves, let alone those with large stocks and little or no liquidity, will eventually reach the point where they must close down.
The BTC tells me that with each week that passes it considers that more firms are being forced out of business. It points to the serious risk that the industry will emerge from the present recession, not only reduced in size and capacity, but so disrupted that it will no longer be a balanced industry capable of carrying out all textile processes and able to compete in world markets. If the industry is left seriously weakened imports will increase to make good any shortfall in supplies in the United Kingdom market and exports will decline. If, on the other hand, the industry survives the present recession intact, and disruptive low-cost imports


are controlled, it might well be possible for the industry to increase its exports and its share of the home market to the extent necessary to bridge this gap.
The BTC emphasises the dangers that the trade deficit will increase and place an additional burden on the balance of payments. Above all, it concludes that the social and economic consequences of any further disruption of the industry are, therefore, grave indeed.
The BTC has also considered the dangers of a policy of import restraints. It does not believe that such restraints would lead to shortages in the market, eliminate competition or have any marked effect on prices, particularly to the consumer. It believes the risk of other countries following our example to be small.
Britain, is a major trading nation. We have to face the fact, therefore, that, depending as we do on imported food and raw materials, all our efforts to date have been rather to encourage our trading partners to sustain world trade at the highest possible level. We have all benefited from this as consumers. The massive post-war increase in international trade has resulted in equally substantial rises in the standard of living of us all.
The world economy is now in a very difficult position. The Prime Minister himself has told the House that import controls as a general policy would be bad for Britain precisely because they would get world trade spiralling further downwards. He has said that if we impose general physical controls to restrict imports it would not be an alternative to deflation of our own economy. Deflation of demand must to some extent affect the market for the textile industry's own products. Textiles may be a special case, but even then we should not forget that our exports of clothing and textiles in 1974 amounted to over £1,100 million.
I do undertake to give the proposal the most careful consideration, but I must emphasise that the Government have taken no decision. Nor, I repeat, should the extension of surveillance licencing be taken to mean that we are moving in this direction.
I would also remind the House that the Government have told the industry that it should see protection as a means of present security to enable necessary in-

vestment to be made for the future. Considerable Government funds are available to the industry to continue its modernisation programme. Let us also not forget the good years of 1973 and 1974 in total terms, when many companies were announcing almost record results in terms of profitability.
The upturn in the textile cycle will surely come. I do not want to see that upturn result in an increase in imports. Some firms in the industry have planned their investment programmes to ensure that additional modern capacity is there to take full advantage of that upturn. I look to the rest of the industry to follow that example, and by investment to ensure now a viable and successful industry in the upturn that is coming.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Parliamentary Secretary has made a long and interesting speech, as one expects of him. He sits for a Lancashire textile constituency and he knows his subject. We are to hear from him again tonight, I understand, and although it is a pleasure to listen to him it would have perhaps been a greater pleasure if we could have heard the head of the Department, because, agreeable though the Parliamentary Secretary is, he has no power of decision. It is only the Secretary of State who, having listened to the many voices which will be expressed tonight about the desperate state of these industries, could respond to those voices in a positive way. For all his good will the Parliamentary Secretary has not the power to do that, and to that extent, therefore, all our speeches are to some degree in vain.
The crisis in the textile industries is quite unlike anything I have seen in 24 years. Usually it was possible to point a finger at some weakness in the industries. In the past we were said to have old machinery, bad marketing, no shifts—something was always said to be wrong. But no one on this occasion thinks there is anything seriously wrong with our productive capacity. The plant has been modernised and is very efficiently run. Labour relations are excellent—better than in almost any other industry in the country, although the operatives work for very modest wages—and there is no serious charge of cost


inflation there. There is good management, a smaller industry and yet a more efficient one than at any time since the war. In spite of these things, however, the crisis is worse—a crisis in the sense that the penetration of the United Kingdom market gets bigger daily.
We have to consider the fundamental reasons for this. It is not enough, using our existing mechanisms, to look at the details and statistics; we have to consider why, although industry is poised and ready and capable of performing the task it should be performing, it is not doing so.
It is not a failure of demand. In a Written Answer on 12th March the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to blame demand. He said
 I and my colleagues are very aware of the present state of the textile industry which is being affected by a depressed level of demand." —[Official Report, 12th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 183.]
He slightly qualified that reply today by saying that the cause was not a depressed level of retail demand. What he was referring to, although he did not say so, was a depressed level of demand for manufactured goods from the retailers and merchants. That is a very different story. It means that, other things being equal, there is a retail demand there. We know from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) interposed that the demand is being satisfied by suits as cheap as £8 from Romania—not, I think, suits that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) could wear, but no doubt suitable in other ways.
There is not a failure of demand. Retail demand is buoyant, and the merchants are buying abroad. The Parliamentary Secretary poured a good deal of scorn on their lack of patriotism, and no doubt if other things were equal or if they were only a little unequal, those merchants would pefer to buy British. However, if things are very unequal, that is too much to ask of someone who is in business.
The penetration is something of the order of 60 per cent. What is the reason for that? First, it has been suggested that the reason that the indigenous industry cannot compete with this very high demand is that it lacks liquid resources in the form of capital and cash in order to weather the recession. That is why the

industry is not making for stock any longer, and why short time is being worked. There may be something in that. It is a problem which is common to every industry at the moment, owing to the way industry has been treated, but since this is an all-party discussion I do not wish to raise a discordant note by discussing that situation. Nevertheless, it has a peculiarly devastating effect upon the textile industry.
The second and only possible reason for the continued penetration given the factors I have mentioned, is that, in spite of this slimmed-down, peaceful and very well-managed industry, the overseas competition in some way or other must be unfair. There can be no other explanation. I do not believe that most of the penetration is by fair competition. The memorandum which has often been quoted and which was put out by the British Textile Confederation—perhaps the best of all the briefs with which we have been showered in the last month or so—makes the significant point. It says that imports cannot be fair if the penetration is as rapid and great as it is, and I think that the logic of the situation drives one to that conclusion. The United Kingdom market, it says, is the first target for any overseas industry seeking an outlet for its excess production because it is a soft market and because our systems of control, whatever the regulations may appear like on paper, are softer in practice and in administration than are those of other markets.
I am therefore delighted that the Government have agreed tonight to adopt some sort of new mechanism for at least detecting the penetration before it becomes a flood. One of the troubles of our machinery in the past has been that, while one could not stop, or was not disposed to stop, a flood, one did not even know the flood was occurring until several months after it had begun. I am happy that the new mechanism that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced tonight will at least give us an earlier warning system than we have had in the past.
The previous rules, by which a trader or manufacturer had to go through a very lengthy process before he could prove even that such a flood of goods was coming in, was much too slow. Has the Under-Secretary any announcement to


make about speeding up that process? We do not believe that the system of policing imports into the United Kingdom from EEC associates is nearly good enough. Although the Minister has done something about Turkish and Greek yarn, and was right to do it and has done it relatively rapidly—and for that is to be commended—I do not believe, for example, that Portuguese imports are properly examined. I do not believe, either, that manufactured cloth and made-up clothing from Turkey and Greece are properly policed even now. I hope, therefore, that in concluding the Under-Secretary will tell us what further proposals there may be on that score.
Perhaps the big disappointment tonight, not altogether unexpected, has been the Minister's rejection of the British Textile Confederation's suggestion that there should be restraints, preferably in volume terms, by which imports of manufactured textiles and clothing should be reduced to a level 20 per cent. below that of 1974. In a way this is a symbol. The multi-fibre arrangements and the other excellent EEC arrangements for burden sharing will inevitably take time to be worked out and introduced. The reduction to a level 20 per cent. below that of 1974 would be a symbol of the Government's determination to take early and drastic steps to do something about the desperate plight of the textile industry today—not in the autumn, but today.
The figures of short time are terrifying. In my constituency, in a group of mills called the Birtwistle Group, there is nobody working today, and there will be nobody working there tomorrow or all next week. All the workers in the group have been sent away until after Easter. This is the sort of moment when short time begins to turn rapidly into no time, into redundancies.
Therefore, we are not entitled to rely merely on the multi-fibre agreement and the burden-sharing arrangements that the EEC will no doubt produce. What we are entitled to rely on is the crash machinery that the EEC promises in circumstances of closures of mills such as we are threatened with, by which within eight working days, if the EEC has done nothing to help us, we are entitled to help ourselves.
The way in which we should help ourselves is to take advantage of the sugges-

tion of the British Textile Confederation —a responsible body which is not given to hysteria, or to crying "Wolf ", and which represents the industry vertically, horizontally, diagonally and any other way one can think of. It has said that there must be a 20 per cent. cut in the level of 1974 imports if there is to be any industry left to take advantage of the good times which the Under-Secretary thinks, and I think, will eventually come.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I shall concentrate on the cotton textile section of the industry, as did the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has told us that the industry is not backward. It is not based in dark, satanic mills but is a modern, capital-intensive, technologically-based industry, with forward-looking management and unions. In the past 16 years it has been trimmed to the bone to become efficient. Those of us from the North-West are aware that it is an efficient industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that no industry in the country has enjoyed such close and congenial labour relations as the textile industry. Many people would say that the trade union movement should have been more militant in defending jobs in the industry. It is an industry in which multi-shift working has been accepted by the majority of operatives' and workers in the industry have consistently moderated their wage demands. Yet we find the industry in its present position.
I worked in the industry for a short time before I entered the House. I became aware that in many mills in the Lancashire area the majority of employees were coloured immigrants. If there is short-time working, the very fact that they tend to be concentrated on night shift and low-paid jobs, and are therefore probably the first to be made redundant or go on to short time, means that there will be a threat to community relations in Lancashire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State will bear that in mind when considering what aid should be given.
We have heard about imports. Let us be blunt. This country is far too liberal in its attitude to low-cost imports. Many


people would say that without changing any regulations we could at least change the position over dumping, in that we could require the burden of proof that no dumping was involved to be placed on the importer or the nation exporting to us, and not wait until someone in this country said that dumping was going on and then have an investigation. I am not sure that the procedures that my hon. Friend has outlined will do anything to help us in that respect.
I support my hon. Friend's appeal on the purchase of British textiles, which may be useful, but the hon. and learned Gentleman answered that when he said that importing was big business, and asked who could blame the business men concerned. In a capitalist world, who can blame them? If they can make a quick buck, what kind of appeal will they listen to?
Immediate measures must be taken. I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's response. He spoke about public purchasing, and mentioned the figure of 2 per cent. He also taked about import surveillance. Nothing has been done about quotas. I am left with the conclusion that again the Government will do too little, too late, and will relate it to the wrong figures, anyway.
Next Tuesday, 3,000 or 4,000 textile workers from the North-West will be demonstrating in London their justified indignation at the way in which a Labour Government have treated them. Demonstrators from constituencies which elected Labour MPs will be saying "We have been let down.- I am not prepared to accept that, and I hope that I can rely on the support of my hon. Friends. Unless something is forthcoming quickly. we shall, next Monday or Tuesday, pick up where we leave off tonight, and the campaign will continue.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members elected for textile constituencies will also be supporting the demonstration next Tuesday?

Mr. Noble: I am aware of that. We shall be delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman, and Liberal Members.
What do we need? One thing that we could do with is a mark of origin. My

hon. Friend said that public authorities purchased British-manufactured goods when they knew that they were British-manufactured. We should alter the mark of origin for textiles to read "Spun, woven and finished in the United Kingdom." There would then be no doubt about the origin. Perhaps that would make the buy-British campaign more effective.
We want the change I mentioned in dumping procedures, and we also want the introduction of quotas outlined by the BTC—and we shall continue to press for them until we succeed. Those are the short-term and immediate measures. In the medium term the Government should seriously investigate the proposals from the Textile Industry Support Campaign for a regulator which will move according to the level of trade in this country. In the long term the unions and many employers will be looking towards the Industry Act as a means of survival.
In 1957 a pamphlet was written which opened with these words:
 Hardly any major British industry has been the subject of so much published information. What is needed now is not further inquiry or talk, but action to secure for Lancashire a secure future in a rapidly changing world.
That was the situation in 1957, and it remains the situation today. The write of that pamphlet was the present Prime Minister. We rightfully demand action now.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I shall restrict my few remarks to the textile industry in Scotland, which means that I shall be speaking entirely about the woollen side of the industry. Many names in the Scottish woollen industry are household names—Pringle, Braemar, Ballantyne, Reid and Taylor, and Crombie in my own constituency of West Aberdeenshire. Today, those firms are suffering from short-time working and doubt about the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and agree that the labour relations in the industry throughout its long history are a credit to Britain. If every other British industry had the same type of industrial relations we should be a wealthier country today.
We are having trouble in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, with imports. It is interesting to see where the


imports of woollen goods are coming from. A large amount come from the Far East, and some from Eastern Europe. I am certain that if we cannot get voluntary import controls by manufacturers we shall have to have compulsory ones. I echo my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who said that lying at our hand are the EEC regulations which are there to do just this. They are operated regularly and quickly by France and Italy. Why do not we use them when they are there for our use?
Other hon. Members will speak of the crisis in other sections of the industry and suggest what measures should be taken. My remaining few remarks relate to the future on a slightly different subject and that is our position vis-à-vis the EEC, and here I am speaking again mainly about Scotland. In this instance we are net gainers. We send more textiles into the Community pro rata than other member countries send to us. This is particularly important for Scotland, because the Scottish woollen industry exports more than 50 per cent. of its production. Of that 50 per cent., more than 50 per cent. goes into the EEC. When we failed to enter the Community in the early 1960s, about halt our United Kingdom yard and fabric woollen manufactures to Europe were lost. We have been able to estimate, through the Wool Textile delegation, that if we withdrew from the EEC the United Kingdom would lose £50 million worth of sales and 5,000 jobs.
If one makes the calculation for Scotland, with its high proportion of textile manufacture, much of which is exported, one can see the danger of a loss of £10 million on sales and 1,000 jobs. It is vital to take immediate remedial action, but, for the future, it is essential for our Scottish woollen textile industry that we should remain part of the EEC.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Frank R. White: In this debate I shall be referring to the cotton and allied yarn side of the textile industry. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry for the manner in which he opened the debate. Several hon. Members wish to go on record as thanking him for his efforts on behalf of the textile industry while, at the same time, recognising the constraints under which he has had to work. It is his

hon. and right hon. Friends who are absent from the Front Bench who are more in need of the stimulation of this debate than he is. I am sure my hon. Friend will draw their attention to our comments and make them aware of the preparation they will have to make when they receive the next visit from the Textile Group.

Mr. Me,acher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, but I would point out that I have with me on the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who will, I am sure, take full account of the many points on trade which will be raised in the debate and communicate them to his Secretary of State.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is the top brass we want.

Mr. White: I would not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade to have a guilt complex sufficient to lead him to assume responsibility for the whole Front Bench on the question of textiles.

Mr. Higgins: We are extremly glad to see a representative from the Department of Trade. It is becoming something of a habit for the Secretary of State for Industry, as in the case of Court Line, not to turn up for difficult debates.

Mr. White: I do not regard the debate as the pinnacle of the efforts of our Textile Group on behalf of the industry. It is more like a high plateau of representation that we are determined to maintain. Platitudes from Ministers will not deter us one jot until we have secured an irreversible future for the textile industry of this country.
That leads me to my first request. I should like the Minister in his reply to state unequivocally whether or not it is the intention to retain a viable textile industry in this country—no "ifs ", or "buts" ; just a clear statement. If the answer is "Yes ", all that remains is to deal with the question of what policies should be pursued to make that viability a reality.
I ask for that clear commitment because in the past the industry has received from successive Governments many assurances that have proved to be worthless or, in the event, when they have


been realised have come along much too late. In the 1950s the industry was exhorted to rationalise to obtain the optimum unit size. Further contractions seeking this elusive unit took place in the 1960s, and now we face the same problem in the 1970s. We in the industry believe that we have the optimum size now, and that what is at stake is the future of the industry.
I was brought up as a young man in an area of Bolton called Tong Moor. Two of the major employers in that area were the Denvale Mill and the Dart Mill, both spinning companies. The Denvale Mill is now a tool store, and the Dart Mill closed last month. My parents, friends, relatives and neighbours worked in textiles, and terms like "stripper and grinder ", "little piecer ", "ring room ", "guard room ", "beaming and twisting "were as common to me as are the modern day job titles. As a young man my imagination ran riot when I heard spinners on a hot day complaining that their ends had been breaking all day.
Friends in the community like Nellie Harbott, unknown to hon. Members, left school at the age of 12 and worked halftime in the mill. For the uninitiated, halftime meant that for one week one worked in the mill in the mornings, and in the afternoons one went to school, and in the following week one went to school in the morning and worked in the mill in the afternoon. That was not the factory age of Dickens ; that happened in 1914. Nellie Harbott was the young girl of 14 who lost two fingers and a thumb while operating a carding machine and who did not receive a penny in compensation. Nellie Harbott worked in a mill until 1970, giving a lifetime's service to the textile industry.
It is for the operatives who produce great wealth from Lancashire and who, in common with the region, share little of that wealth and the benefits it has brought —people who have lived through contractions, disruptions, the dole, and redundancy—that we demand a meaningful and clear guarantee for the industry in which they serve this country. I say, "serve "because there may be hon. Members present who will remember that in the dark days after the war, when the economy of this country was facing great difficulties, it was, "Britain's bread that

hung by Lanacashire thread ". On behalf of the industry I wish to redeem the pledge given in 1946.
I have spoken of the past because it is essential that the contribution the industry has given to the country should not be forgotten and should be the motivation for providing for its future. The industry has continued to meet its responsibilities to the community. The accusations that can be levelled at other traditional industries, such as lack of investment, resistance to change, and bad industrial relations policies, however caused, are not true of the textile industry.
The textile industry is highly capitalised and efficient. It has extremely good labour relations. The trade unions and their members have accepted the changes necessary in restructuring the industry. New techniques, works studies, continuous shift operation and the optimum use of labour and capital have been readily agreed to in a joint effort to rid the industry of its old-fashioned "trouble up at t' mill "image. We now have one of the most modern textile industries in the world, containing the most modern mills. We are the centre of textile technology and, as one of the largest continuous-process operations in the country, we fear no competition from any source providing that that competition is on fair terms.
Many hon. Members will lay evidence of the need for action. Statistics can be produced to show the degree of import penetration and evidence can be presented of suspected dumping on the market. The protective attitude of other countries facing similar problems will be aptly illustrated.
I wish to deal with two aspects which merely emphasise two points already made. First, if we assume that the Government wish to retain a viable textile industry, it follows that a market floor should be established for the industry. Demand above that market floor would be available for import licences. I have been advised that even on full capacity my side of the industry would be able to meet only 60 per cent. of requirements, leaving ample home demand for imports —imports controlled by licence. It will be a matter of Government policy to decide which countries receive import licences. If the whole industry fell


short of its production target additional licences could be granted.
Britain is the soft touch for the world textile barons, and the present position cannot be tolerated. We reject the attitude of mind that demands that proof of disruption must be illustrated before action is taken. In this respect, I am critical of some Government Departments —some aspects of the Departments of Trade and Industry. They remind me of the hot air balloonist. Having achieved the height of 10,000 ft. and lost both the balloon and the basket, he requests justification of a pending downward trend—invariably in triplicate! When the livelihood of thousands of textile operatives is at stake I and my colleagues will not accept that the dole queue, redundancies and mill closures are the only acceptable evidence of disruption.
The monitoring and control of imports by a trading nation is of great concern to us. There is an urgent need to review our systems related to this. I note what the Minister said but I agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) that it does not go far enough, is not firm enough, and could be taken advantage of. If Government Departments are prepared to let the industry go to the wall let them say it. Let us say that we have overseas commitments, that we wish to continue to trade with various countries and that the textile industry will have to take what comes. If this is the way we have to do it, let them tell us. Let every other major British industry which could be faced with similar circumstances be warned that it can expect little or no protection.
I mention the retail trade outlets and public purchasing. The Minister has referred to this and I welcome his statement. A few months ago the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and I questioned Government Ministers on the issue of public purchasing. We were assured by Ministers that the majority of purchases made by their Departments were made in Britain. As the hon. Member for Rossendale said, unless this means spun, woven, finished and made-up in Britain, it is little or no good at all.
We have evidence of people within the industry selling the industry short.

I support the Minister's statement on this. These people capitalise on cheap imports, manufacture finished goods and sell them as made in Britain. They build their house on sand. I want to be present when these people in the retail industry, facing problems themselves, ask for Government help. I shall have some scathing comments to make on their requests. This applies even more to the local authorities and local health authorities within the textile region. Overseas purchases are being made while people in those areas are on short time or have been made redundant. Next week in the North-West many mills will be closing down for the full week. In some of those areas local councils are purchasing overalls, Duffel coats and textile goods for their workers direct from foreign sources. I criticise them most strongly on this. We have been told that the Treasury insists on lowest tenders being accepted. It appears that the Treasury would prefer to have British textile workers on the dole rather than to accept tenders of marginal significance. In this respect the Treasury qualifies for membership of the balloonist club.
We have been informed in our discussions with various heads of the industry and the trade union movement that about 14 retail outlets account for 50 per cent. of the retail sales in this country. Penetration to those 14 would mean a disaster to the textile industry in this country. One is a name known throughout the land. Every housewife is confident that when she goes into Marks and Spencer she will buy quality and service. It is a matter of great regret to me that that well-known trade outlet seems to be changing its policy from buying British to buying foreign goods. I urge that company, through this House, to reconsider its purchasing policies. British industry could offer the same skill, design and quality, and at a competitive price. This has been proved.
I am aware that major retail outlets are being approached by the trade unions and the industry itself. I urge them, "Buy British, help the balance of payments and give life to the textile industry ". I can assure them that there is no such reluctance among their retail outlet colleagues on the Continent. They buy home goods first. Some people are of the opinion that cheap goods from


under-developed countries aid the consumer.
Bearing in mind the old saying that one picture is worth a thousand words, I have had delivered to me samples of textile goods.
I have here an imported Portuguese flannelette cot sheet, which is a direct design copy of the Lancashire article. This Portuguese article is coming in at 5p to 6p below the cost of production. Believe it or not, this is said to benefit the consumer and the under-developed nations. The Lancashire cloth is first-class quality. We know this because the Portuguese sheet was sent to the Lancashire manufacturers with a letter stating that:
 Your latest batch is below standard and below quality.
We know, therefore, from the retail outlet that the Lancashire article is the quality article. The Lancashire article would be sold to a mail order firm—I shall not divulge the name—at 98p per pair. Every mother-to-be in the land would be buying them. They are offered at 98p per pair and retailed at £1·97 per pair, which is the price they were advertised at in the mail order firm's catalogue. This firm is now buying these sheets from Portugal and retailing them at £2·11 per pair. That one picture amply illustrates that the consumer is certainly not benefiting.
Those who benefit are the unscrupulous mark-up men—the middle men of the industry—at whom the Minister has already had a bash. They are the people in the countries of origin who are capitalising on their work forces. If anyone can show me how the loss of jobs on the part of 70,000 Lancashire textile workers will help people in those underdeveloped countries when this kind of profit is being made I shall be most surprised.
I have tried to make a case for action. I may have been a little emotional at times but to me, and to all of us, this is an emotional subject. We believe that our area has been neglected in many ways. Nowhere can the frustration of ordinary people be felt more than in the textile industry. They feel that they have given all that could be asked of them and in return they have not received the

consideration they deserve. Their only wish is to help the country through its economic difficulties. To do that they need work and they need protection. We look to the Government to provide that.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on a vivid and knowledgeable address on the problems of the textile industry in his part of the country. I hope he will agree that it is appropriate for us also to consider the problems of Yorkshire and the wool textile industry. I am grateful for the fact that this debate is taking place even though I recognise that it is due largely to the pressure exerted by hon. Members representing West Lancashire on both sides of the House. It is they who drove the Government to provide time for a debate.
The Yorkshire wool textile industry shares many of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. In the first instance imports of low-priced complete garments are putting at risk jobs in many parts of our area. This is so in my own constituency, and I am sure that it is also the case in constituencies in neighbouring Leeds and Bradford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) quoted an example in an earlier intervention. I have had a little more information from the wool textile delegation. It appears that there is a large import trade in finished garments from the Comecon group of countries. I have had quoted the price of £8 for a finished suit from Czechoslovakia, £12 for the same article from Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia. The average price of finished worsted suitings from this part of the world comes up at £9 a suit.
From this point of view it is painfully obvious that this country's wool textile industry is facing excessive competition, from Eastern Europe in particular. There can be little doubt that this must be classified as unfair competition. As hon. Members have pointed out, there is also a problem with regard to the import of yarns particularly from the Far East and in particular acrylic yarns from Taiwan and Korea. I cannot help feeling that,


faced as we have been tonight with some of the quotations, not only from the British Textile Confederation but from from hon. Members, had we had the courage we would have acted first and explained afterwards.
I cannot help feeling that this is what would have happened in France or in Germany if either of those countries had been in this position. We are regrettably soft when it comes to taking action on import controls. As a trading nation—and no industry is more proud of its export performance than the total textile industry, obviously including cotton textiles as well as wool—we must understand that unless we have a thriving home industry there will be no export record of which to be proud. We must take adequate steps to protect ourselves from imports which are proven to be of a particularly low price and below cost of production if we want to sustain our industry in future.
I turn to a third aspect of peculiar concern to the wool textile industry. Here I hesitate before introducing a more discordant note into the debate. The wool textile industry is fundamentally an industry based on small firms. In total it employs 90,000 people. There are about one thousand firms registered by the Confederation, which means that the average size of a unit in the textile industry is about 100 workers. These are small units of production.
Nearly one-third of these small units is in the hands of private family firms. Many of these produce highly specialist cloth. One of the problems of the industry is that it does not easily lend itself to economies of scale. It is not a matter of arranging mergers to produce larger organisations, because the demands of fashion, variety and the type of fibres which are so specialist require the small units. There are finishers, yarnsmen and dyers. These are small operations which are all part of a large industry.
It will be recognised that the industry looks with a great deal of anxiety to its future. We have discussed the problem of the importation of cheap made-up garments. There is a large problem overhanging the future of small firms and particularly small family firms.
Reference was made to good industrial relations. It is not an accident that good industrial relations exist in small units

Government supporters will acknowledge that close involvement between management and operatives in a small unit tends to bring good understanding, good communications and, therefore, good industrial relations. However, as a result of the Government proposals in the Finance Bill, and especially the capital transfer tax, there is great anxiety over the future of family wool textile companies.
The wool textile industry has a proud export record. Almost 30 per cent. of its production was exported in 1974. Therefore, the industry can claim to be a major factor in our trade balance. The wool textile industry exports goods to the value of £2,600 per operative per annum. We are proud of that.
In view of the Government proposals it will be difficult for companies to continue in their traditional way. The problem of financing companies is real in inflationary times, and Governments have perhaps done less for the wool textile industry than they might have done. There is a good sign, however, that the £15 million capital injection will be taken up. The difficulty is that the small companies rely on the banks. There is no capital market on which they can rely, and such,companies are not of the size to command Government intervention. The future of these companies is gravely threatened by inflationary pressures.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the greatest problem is the future of small family firms because of the capital transfer tax and its effect on the structure of the wool textile industry. If mergers into larger units was a sensible course, as happened with Lancashire cotton textiles, that would occur in the case of wool textiles. However, that is not the case. There are few large wool textile companies, and even those are broken down into small operating units because of the range of manufacture and variety of production.
I hope that we do not have to say that the wool textile industry, especially that in West Yorkshire, withstood the pressures of foreign competition and succeeded in the export market, only to be defeated by the Government at home. Whatever may be his anxieties regarding the Industry Bill, and the effects of the capital transfer tax on industry, I hope that the Minister will examine the effects


of CTT on a small industry which is designed around family units, because without the small manufacturing units there would be no wool textile industry.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) has left the Chamber, since I wanted to congratulate him on having reminded us that we are talking about human beings and the sufferings they endure because they work in the textile industry. I thought that his was a moving speech.
What type of industry are we talking about? I know that there are experts on both sides of the House. However, we are not speaking about a small industry. We are talking about the third largest employer of labour in the United Kingdom. Approximately 930,000 people are employed in the British textile and allied clothing industries.
Reference was made to the Industry Bill and to the fact that 9·28 per cent. of all those employed in manufacturing industry work in the textile industry. This industry is regionalised. Almost 40 per cent. of the working population of Nelson are employed in the textile industry. I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who knows a great deal about mills. In Rochdale 30 per cent. of the working population are employed in the textile industry. In the North-West 23 per cent. are employed in the industry.
This industry is efficient and modern, and even though it has declined in recent years, output per head has risen. It has given a lead which many other industries could follow. Output rose by 7·1 per cent. per annum during the years 1966·1973 when the rest of manufacturing industry lagged behind at 4·3 per cent. In 1974 this industry was our largest exporter. Therefore we are talking about an industry which is vital to the economy of Great Britain.
Much has been said about the lack of investment in manufacturing industry. However, despite its decline, the textile industry has benefited from investments. Between 1970 and 1973 the sum of £145 million per annum was invested. I would rate that as a success story. If there had been that investment in other sections of

manufacturing industry, we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today.
What has been the reward to the textile industry? It has declined, and the reason for its decline is that almost 60 per cent. of the home market is taken up by foreign imports. I suggest that there is no industry in this or any other country which could be viable in those conditions. We cannot for much longer allow it to languish in this fashion. If we do there will be no British textile industry, apart from a few specialised units.
When we talk about low-cost imports, we have to remember that, when the market is booming, the cost of those imports goes up and that in 1974, with a booming market, in many cases they were more expensive than home-produced textile goods. That is what would happen if we allowed our industry to go into such a decline that soon it became extinct. We could not afford the adverse effect that this would have on our balance of payments.
Another aspect which has not been touched upon is that, prior to our entering the Common Market, it was thought by many people in the textile industry that perhaps this would be the panacea for which the industry was looking. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. Our exports to Common Market countries have improved. However, their exports to us have increased at an even faster rate. The difference has grown from a deficit of £4 million in 1970 to one of £45·5 million in 1973, and in 1974 it reached £69·2 million.
Another disappointing feature has been that the other Common Market counties, with the possible exception of West Germany, have not opened their doors to the low-cost imports which we have taken into this country in the way that we would have liked.
When we look at the burden sharing, although it may be right in broad terms, what it really means in relation to the British textile industry is not a reduction of the share of imports which we take but that we have a lower rate of growth while the others are catching up, and the other countries like Italy and France will not catch up until some time in the


mid-1980s. That is too little, too late to help the British textile industry.

Mr. John Roper: Has my hon. Friend any alternative mechanism outside the Common Market by which we could influence those countries to expand their imports?

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, I have. Whether we are in or out of the Common Market, we cannot afford to allow our textile industry to decline. If we are outside, we must take whatever measures are necessary. If we stay in, we must press on our partners the need for them to help us by taking similar measures, otherwise the British textile industry is at risk. That is my message tonight.
It is not just that we have been taking low-cost imports in similar quantities to those that we took before we went into the Common Market. In playing our rôle as a member, we have accepted low-cost imports from the Common Market suppliers, notably the Mediterranean associate countries. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that imports from Greece and Turkey were having such a disruptive effect on the British textile industry that there had been a cut of 20 per cent. in our imports. However, the cut took place only after damage had been done to the spinning side of our textile industry. Indeed, they are only temporary restrictions. I have read in the Press—I should like confirmation of this point by my hon. Friend when he winds up the debate—that Turkey is saying that if we continue with the restrictions on cotton yarn coming into this country, she will take action against the exports of British goods to Turkey—notably, plastic and construction machinery.
It is well known that the Turkish industry is being built up on the basis of free access to West Germany and to this country. Nor is Turkey alone with imports coming into this country. The point has rightly been made that we are a "soft touch ". This matter concerns not only textiles, but motor cars. I have had similar pleas from the motor car industry, the glass manufacturers and the makers of television receivers.
Low-cost imports are disrupting our economy. Textiles have suffered longer than other industries—indeed, far too long. It is true that silent pain gets no

sympathy. We shall be not be silent any longer. Indeed, we have been silent too long.
I turn to the liberalisation of yarn imports. Britain is the only country in the EEC which has restrictions on yarn imports. We must have complete liberalisation by 1977.
What has happened to the spinning section with imports from Greece and Turkey? We learn that yarn import quotas this year will be increased by 25 per cent. That has been a death blow to the spinning section. Coming on top of other blows, it is too much for it to bear.
I should like to issue another warning to the woven cloth side of the industry. From January woven cloth from the Mediterranean associates, Greece and Turkey, can be imported into this country without export licences from those countries in any quantity against firm orders. What will that do to the woven cloth side of the industry?
I turn now to the measures which I suggest should be taken, some of which have already been put forward. Due regard should be paid to the plea by the BTC for emergency measures to cut global quotas by 20 per cent. on the 1974 figure. This is being asked for as a temporary measure, but it is the kind of measure which will pump the lifeblood back into the British textile industry. It is not too much to ask on its behalf.
I should like to follow the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and Bury and Radcliffe regarding dumping. We have read in the Press about the 20p shirt. It is true that one million were imported from Romania and Poland between January and December 1974. Yet I suggest that it was impossible to find a shirt at that cost in any shop in this country. Again, someone has been doing very well in that respect.
I have referred to the subsidies given by the Government to imports from Greece and Turkey. I should also mention Brazil. We should follow the example of Australia and Canada and say that the onus of proof regarding dumping rests with the importer, not with the British industry. By the time the evidence is provided, the damage has been done to the industry.
It is important to look again at the regulator. When the market is booming, as has been said, we do not have the capacity in this country to meet all the demand. Indeed, we suck imports into this country. However, when the market becomes depressed, those imports continue to come in. What we are asking for is a regulator based upon the stock position. There would be a cutback in imports, but when the next boom came and the stocks fell we could have a relaxation on imports. That would bring some stability to the British textile industry. Again, it is not too much to ask. Control of imports would prevent sudden surges which are so damaging to the industry.
Contrary to what has been said, three major firms have over 50 per cent. of the production capacity. We might well consider having planning agreements for them. It is essential that we secure the future of the worker in the textile industry. We who have responsibilities in textile constituencies will not allow the industry to die. We believe that there is a future, which is deserved, for those who have worked in the industry and have given so much but yet have received so little from successive Governments.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I believe that I am the first Cheshire Member to be called in this important debate. I hope that Members who come from Lancashire and who will dominate the debate will not forget that Cheshire is an important part of the textile industry in the North-West. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). He echoed, in emotional sentiments at times, my feelings about an industry which is valuable to this country.
I was interested in the reference by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) to origin marking. If his proposal were implemented, a firm in my constituency, Berisfords—the largest ribbon manufacturers in the world—would be most grateful because, in addition to making ribbons, it produces the labels which would be used and on which would be printed the words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see on British textiles.
I welcome the sympathy shown by the Minister, and particularly the surveillance

import licensing system which I understood him to spell out. This is particularly interesting, bearing in mind the brief all Members have received, perhaps only today, from ICI. In the brief it says that if we had such a system for polyester filament woven fabrics
 we should now have indications of at least four months since the increase 
in imports
 began, instead of just two, and the Government could form a proper judgment on whether market disruption, in the terms of the documents which constitute its international obligation, is occurring. The figures show how quickly an import threat can build up. A textile market can be ruined in four months. The same could happen in other types of polyester fibre. The case for introducing a surveillance mechanism could hardly be clearer.
I am therefore delighted to welcome the Minister's proposal.
The United Kingdom textile industry is in the throes of the worst crisis of all time —certainly the worst since the 1930s. It is estimated that 150,000 of the 830,000 people employed in the industry are operating on short-time. In the cotton and allied sector, in which I am particularly interested, which includes the processing of man-made fibres, and is largely concentrated in the North-West, 60,000 out of 84,000 people—in other words, three-quarters of the industry—are on short-time.
This is an exceptional situation. We have heard that thousands will be taking an extended stoppage over Easter and that many mills will stop not just for a week but for a full fortnight. That brings with it loss of wages and financial hardship to many textile workers and their families. We represent them in this House and we must stand up for their interests. To repeat what has been said here, these are workers who, perhaps, have been more loyal and conscientious than any other group in manufacturing industry, and therefore they fully deserve better treatment from us.
I hope the Minister will come forward with more proposals for Government action when he concludes the debate. I am pleased that many of his remarks were devoted to his own area—the North-West. There, 12 mills have closed or have announced their intention of closing, and 3,000 people have lost their jobs. In an


interchange with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during business questions a fortnight ago I raised the subject of the Meriden co-operative. The Secretary of State for Industry asked for immediate and exceptional action, and the Government acted. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs and I want similar action from the Government.
I say without reservation—I would say the same thing to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, were he a Minister of the Crown today—that I want action from the Government. It is true that a reduction in demand has contributed to the situation that we face today, but whatever the Minister may say there can be no doubt that the fundamental cause of the crisis is the high level of imports pouring into this country at an alarming rate, just at a time when the United Kingdom economy can least absorb them. Import penetration has reached an all-time record level of 58 per cent. of the total market in the cotton and allied sector. While no Government—I am as critical of my own party as I am of the present Government —has a particularly good record in this respect, the present Government have done a minimum to date to help the textile industry, despite the fact that the Prime Minister—himself a North-West Member—and other Minister have made promise after promise, going back to 1957, and the Plan for Cotton "of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), the recommendations of which he has totally ignored since he assumed office. I suggest that he resurrects that document from the ashes, price now 15p.
I should point to another of the mammoth companies—Courtaulds—which is operating at the present time at between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of capacity. That firm cannot continue to stockpile as it is at the present time. In another three months an unpleasant decision will have to be made which will have a dramatic effect on the North-West.
Using cotton and man-made fibre yarns as an example, total yarn imports went up by 71 per cent. in 1974. From Mediterranean Associates of the EEC they increased by the mammoth figure of 440 per cent. Belatedly, the Government agreed import quotas on yarn from Greece and Turkey in December last, for which the industry is grateful, and so am I,

although it is yet to be informed of the level of these quotas. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that later.
It is vital that the industry should know their level and whether they will be continued after 1975 for investment planning. At the same time the Minister stated that during 1975 he would maintain quotas on imports from Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and other quota-controlled countries. With this statement was the clear implication that quotas would continue at their 1974 level, and this impression was confirmed in all the discussions that the industry and hon. Members had with the Minister and officials of the Department of Industry. The industry was, therefore, shocked to learn early last month, through an announcement from Brussels, that quota levels were to be increased by 25 per cent. in 1975.
As recently as 24th January the Department of Industry was saying, in reply to a letter to the Minister, that
 Growth rates in 1975 will have to be reviewed nearer to the end of the year in the light of the situation at the time.
Were the Government ignorant of the decision being taken in Brussels, or were they as I suspect, deliberately deceiving the industry?
This plot was continued by the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) in his recent speech in Black-pool, which must go on record as the most incredible example of deliberate political deception of all time, when he repeated that the Government intended to maintain quotas on cotton yarn. In fact, he should have said that it was the Government's intention to increase the quotas by 25 per cent.
In this debate we have not heard very much about the EEC. Will the Minister, when he concludes the debate, give his attention to Regulation 1439/74? This gives the United Kingdom Government, as part of Europe, every opportunity to protect itself against unfair competition or in circumstances in which an industry is being placed in danger or threatened. I refer the Minister again to Regulation 1439/74. I hope that he will use it, because the Government, by a majority in the Cabinet, have come out in favour of our remaining part of Europe. Let us use the mechanism of Europe to safeguard our textile industry. Is it because


the Secretary of State himself does not like Europe that he is not prepared to use Europe to defend our textile industry.
I now propose to deal briefly with cloth and garment imports. These have continued to pour into the country at an increasing rate, and they have put the manufacturing and garment sectors of the industry at a serious risk. Imports of clothing increased by 21 per cent., in value, in 1974. Much has been heard of the 20p shirt. More serious, though, are the shirts which come from Hong Kong at 27p and from Portugal at 47p, where the quantities are very much greater than those of the 20p shirt which has hit the headlines.
In my constituency, which has many clothing factories, there are 1,000 textile workers on short time, and a number of redundancies have taken place and many more are threatened.
Only last week the Government gave the industry a list of further items which arc to be liberalised immediately, ranging from bow ties to brassieres. Many hon. Members might welcome the liberalisation of bras—I do not pretend that this news will shake the industry to its very foundations but it is just another example of the Government's determination to erode the industry's markets on almost every front. In this case the industry was given precisely four days to comment before the Government put their proposals to the Commission. I suggest to the House that the industry deserves very much better treatment than it is getting now.
I hope that I may quote an extract from a statement by a member of the CBI Council who comes from the North-West. He said:
 We have in the North-West a rationalised, modernised, textile industry perfectly capable of coping with and benefiting from the EEC if its supporting pillars are not cut from beneath it by unnecessary imports. Today it has factories and equipment amongst the best in the world, highly efficient management, a willing, skilled experienced labour force working shifts which utilise costly investment to the full in a way unheard of a few years ago, and trade unions which are probably the best in the United Kingdom at understanding what this industry needs and solving those needs by negotiation rather than strike.
That surely is indicative that many people in the business appreciate the problems facing the textile industry.
As I said, the industry has the finest work force in the world. Its employees are loyal, concientious and hard working. It has an industrial relations record second to none. It has had no major strike or industrial dispute within the last 40 years. The trade unions have cooperated with employers to the full in the adoption of work study techniques and the introduction of multi-shifts. This is not pleasant for the workers, but they have accepted it and gone along with it. Many firms in the industry are operating not 70, 80 or 90 hours a week but 168 hours, which is a longer working week than currently applies in any other EEC country.
Despite its probelms the industry's record of investment is good. Its capital expenditure, as a percentage of the total wages and salaries, is second only to that of the chemical industry. It is 50 per cent. higher than the motor manufacturing industry, for example, about which we hear so much. The industry wants Government action to regulate the flow of imports so as to eliminate the more serious effects of the textile cycle. The statistics show that every four years the industry suffers from serious recession and short-time working becomes widespread, redundancies occur and there are mill closures.
In such difficult times the industry's labour force and its production capacity are reduced. In the past 13 years the loss of jobs in the cotton and allied sector has been 160,000. Those are people who have had to change their jobs because of the contraction of the industry. There is an average loss of over 10,000 jobs a year. If the industry is allowed to contract any further it is in serious danger of becoming unbalanced and unable to supply certain of the market's essential textile needs. The consumer will suffer in times of bouyant demand because we shall then be at the mercy—both in terms of quantity and of price —of the "textile Arabs "of the world. I am convinced that they would hold us to ransom.
The industry has put forward proposals for an automatic regulator to eliminate the more serious consequences of the cycle. One idea is a dual quota system. That would take the form of a global quota, with each country having a basic quota. The total global quota


would be pitched at the level which would secure additional employment for the home industry during the down-turn in the trade. It is similar to the proposal put forward by earlier contributors to this debate. In addition to the basic quota there would be a form of supplementary quota that would be brought into operation in boom periods when shortages occurred. The basic quota would be less than today's existing quotas but the supplementary quotas, when added to the basic quotas, would at times bring the total quota back to its present level and, preferably, provide for further growth when the situation justified it. The supplementary quotas would be withdrawn as soon as the stocks —they are the best indication of what is happening—started to rise.
The situation is now so serious that an immediate and drastic form of action is required if the industry is to be saved from irreparable damage. The statement by the Leader of the House was of no help. The Government should act on lines recommended by the British Textile Federation and effect an immediate across-the-board cut of 20 per cent. in the value of last year's imports of all textiles from all sources.
Serious consideration should be given to the introduction of a regulator to stabilise the industry's market and to prevent a further contraction of the industry. Additional measures should include the use of anti-dumping legislation and a much greater willingness on behalf of the Civil Service, which I believe has a great influence in these matters, to use such legislation.
All Governments, as has been said already, should be instructed to specify, in their tenders for textiles, that they be spun, woven and made up in the United Kingdom. How right were the hon. Members for Rossendale and Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). It is nonsense that many local authorities and Government purchasing departments should be buying foreign-produced goods at a time when the Government are paying out vast sums in unemployment and redundancy payments to the textile workers.
I feel deeply about this subject. I hope that that feeling has shown through in some of what I have said. I intend to demonstrate with the textile workers

when they come down to London next week. Perhaps that is not usual for a Conservative Member. None the less, the textile workers are good, hard-working people. The House should show sympathy to their case and act on their behalf.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I make an appeal to the House. There are 26 Members with direct constituency interests who still wish to speak. If hon. Members will speak for no more than 10 minutes they will all be able to speak.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: This evening is one of the best of House of Commons occasions, when hon. Members on both sides join sincerely in expressing the anxieties and fears of their constituents. I am not exaggerating when I say that the mood of the House is one of grim determination. The Government would do well to note it.
I want to speak particularly about the wool textile industry. The carpet industry uses large quantities of woollen yarn. Yet the ludicrous position is that, under certain hire-purchase arrangements, carpets are at a disadvantage compared with other types of furniture. The Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order 1973 was introduced by a Conservative Government on 18th December 1973 and imposed a minimum deposit of 33 per cent. and a maximum repayment period of 24 months on most listed goods, including carpets. The deposit on furniture is 20 per cent. and provisions in the order permit additions to existing agreements without payment of the full deposit. It has been discovered that this puts the carpet industry at a severe disadvantage. I urge the Government to amend the order to put carpets on an equal footing with furniture.
Another matter currently concerning us is the hold-ups at the ports, particularly certain labour difficulties. I am continually receiving letters, telegrams and telephone calls from manufacturers whose raw materials are held up at the docks. Only this afternoon, I heard from a man who has 55 bales of wool waiting in one ship. If he does not receive something by the end of the week there will be short time next week and there may be a shut down a week after that. From


this Chamber, I make an appeal to trade union colleagues working in the ports to resolve their differences, particularly among themselves, and to think of their more unfortunate colleagues in the textile industries who desperately await these raw materials.
The general case about imports of cheap clothing has been made. I must add my own disappointment to that already expressed at the lack of precise proposals by my hon. Friend. Although Turkey is retaliating I have a report here about this—because it is to be allowed to export no more than 3,300 tons of cotton thread to this country, it should also be noted for the future that on 1st March the Prime Minister of Egypt laid the foundation stone of a spinning and weaving factory at Asmun which will have 60,000 looms and will produce 6,500 tons of yarn a year. No doubt, if we allow unrestricted imports, they will seek to export a considerable proportion of that yarn to this country.
I believe that the Government could take action under Article 12 of GATT to do precisely what the British Textile Confederation wants—and that is, by one means or another, to reduce the imports of textiles into Britain—cheap clothing, yarns and so on—by 20 per cent. of the 1974 figure, which will bring them down to about the 1973 figure.
Another matter which concerns the wool textile industry particulary is the attitude of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. It is being particularly difficult on some extremely complex matters arising from the Cyprus situation, but in addition, I want to refer to inflation insurance. Recent legislation gave considerable advantage to large exporters in this matter in securing that they would not suffer too much disadvantage from inflation. But there are smaller exporters, including many in the wool textile industry, who have a two-year cycle from the receipt of an order to the delivery of the completed order. Many of them cannot bear the rate of inflation which has been taking place recently. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this matter and seek to include smaller amounts of money in the inflation insurance guarantees.
I want to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) in referring to capital transfer tax. Again, I have received many letters on this subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will convey our anxiety to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Rightly or wrongly, many people in the 350 family firms contained within the wool textile industry have expressed their anxiety about this matter. I hope that they can be reassured. I must emphasise that the wool textile industry depends upon these small units, because its very character requires a flexibility of response to customer requirements, which can be provided only by the very small and very varied units of which it consists. It has enabled the industry to maintain a splendid export record of 28 per cent. of its total turnover in 1974.
Finally, I am glad to report to my ton. Friend the Minister—if I may conclude on a note of comparative cheer—that the changes in the scheme of assistance in the wool textile industry have been generally welcomed and seem to be working well. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to take note of the mood of the House this evening. I do not believe that it will be gainsaid.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The first thing—

Mr. Dan Jones: Ten minutes.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will guarantee to confine his remarks to 10 minutes, I shall try to do the same.
First, I should like, through the Minister, to thank the Leader of the House for having agreed to this debate taking place. That is the only word of thanks I may give to the Government tonight, but I thought that I ought at least to do that. However, there may be odd droppings here and there.
Secondly, I compliment the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on what I thought were two courageous speeches. I ask not only that Ministers should take note of them but also that the hon. Gentleman on the


Opposition Front Bench should note them. I am not being rude to him, but I suspect that he knows nowt about textiles. He represents a London constituency which has nothing to do with them.
Nevertheless, I hope that this point will be appreciated. The Opposition have the opportunity of Supply Days and the opportunity, which is not open to my party, of tabling motions of censure on the Government. I hope that in time—I do not mean immediately, because I should like them to have time to act—perhaps in three months' time, if things have not improved the Opposition will use a Supply Day in order to test the House by a vote on this matter and give Labour Members the opportunity to go into the Lobby and demonstrate to their colleagues in the Government how very strongly they feel about this matter. I hope the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will convey that suggestion to the new leader of his party.
The Under-Secretary made a very fair speech in opening, which is what we expect of him. We realise that we have the quality if we do not have the width of the Department here this evening, but we regret very much the absence of the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade. We understand, of course. The Secretary of State for Trade dare not face the Commons on the question of textiles, and certainly he dare not face the textile unions on the subject. What the textile unions think of the right hon. Gentleman would make interesting reading—far more interesting than even the differences of opinion in the Labour Party about the EEC.
In spite of what I have said the Under-Secretary's speech left a good bit to be desired. He used the words: "We undertake to give the most careful consideration, but—" and "but" is the important word. I am sorry to say that in the view of many of us that is just not good enough. The Under-Secretary went on to urge the industry to invest now, ready for the boom that is to follow. Many of us would like to echo that sentiment and support him, but he must understand that before industrialists will invest they have to have confidence in the future.
It is for the Government, in line with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, to give the industry

confidence in the future by demonstrating that they consider it to be a viable industry which is worthy of support and telling it what they consider to be rock bottom figures, as the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe pleaded.
We are speaking of a major industry. I have all the facts and figures to prove that, but I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating what has already been said. I initiated an Adjournment debate on this question on 27th November last year. Much of what I said then has proved to be true Whereas I was then speaking of about 700 people in my constituency on short-time, we are now talking about 7,000. We are talking about 150,000 on short-time in the industry generally, and 7,000 being redundant. The industry takes the view that the depression that it now faces is so bad that, to quote a letter to me from a senior man in the industry,
 in fact, the Confederation believes that the present recession is the worst since the 1930s".
Many of us yesterday attended a meeting at a large textile company. I shall not quote its name, in view of what I have to say. We were told by the company that it thought that two to three months was as long as it could continue to stockpile at its present level, and that if something was not given to the industry in the next two to three months it would be faced with the necessity of closing down more mills.
In the Adjournment debate in November I pleaded for a regulator. I suggested some sort of quota system which was geared to the cycles of the industry. Since then the industry has suggested a two-tier quota system with a low basic global quota to ensure full employment in times of depression, and supplementary quotas when textiles are in short supply. That would protect both the economy and the consumer.
There are those—I make no secret of the fact that I have had a bit of trouble with my party behind the scenes as well —who seem to imagine that this country should be a dumping ground for other countries. There are those Liberals who are great believers in free trade. I am a believer in free trade as well, provided, first, that it is fair trade, and, secondly, that everyone else is accepting free trade at the time we are expected to agree to it.
What is being advocated now is that we should be the dumping ground, the soft touch, for the rest of the world. While they are all touching it nice and soft here, the other countries are taking steps to limit their imports. For example, the Korean Government have bought 8,000 tons of cotton yarn from their industry. Taiwan is loaning its industry money on the strength of yarn inventories. Thailand is issuing loans to cover 50 per cent. of raw material purchases. Japan is forming anti-recession cartels, with Government approval, and importers are registering all import contracts signed. India is manipulating import duties to obtain raw material for export goods. Quotas are being imposed by Canada on nylon fabric from the Far East. Example after example could be given of such steps by other countries.
I want to say something about attitudes of mind, because they are as important as policy. We suspect that it is the attitude of mind which is dictating Government policy—the attitude not of Ministers but of civil servants. I heard a magnificent phrase used by a Labour Member. I hope that he will forgive me, because I must pinch it from him. He spoke this week of a Bonga Wonga mentality—a mentality which springs from public schools and elite universities, from a recruiting policy to the upper reaches of the Civil Service, tied to the middle and upper classes.
Those people have never experienced poverty. They do not know what unemployment or under-employment is. They do not understand what it is when a woman's wage is taken from a household. Some civil servants think that women work for the fun of it. They do not understand that in Lancashire women go to work not because they want to but because they have to. Their wage is a basic part of the household economy. When those women become unemployed or under-employed, the household's basic economy is shattered. Instead of being able to put aside so much on Friday night for the rent, the groceries, the gas and electricity, the family cannot get to the end of the line, because the woman's wage is missing. It is not a matter of using her wage for a television set, a fridge or such items ; it is a vital part of the family's economy.
Civil servants born with silver spoons in their mouths do not understand that. Their attitude is that we do things differently in this country, that we play according to the rules. We want rules that benefit the textile workers of Lancashire. It is as simple as that.
At the head of the Department is a Minister who was also born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I hope that his Under-Secretary can tell him about the problems of unemployment and explain that the workers of Lancashire seem to go through a constant cycle, repeating every four years the depression in the industry. It happened when the Conservatives were in power, just as much as it is doing now, when Labour is in power. If some of my mates have their way, it will happen when we are in power, though if I have anything to do with it it will not. Certainly the situation cannot go on as it is.

Mr. Meacher: I understand the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern. He can make whatever comments he likes about me—although in my years on the back benches I did not show myself unconcerned about poverty—but I ask him not to make the kind of comments he has just made about civil servants, because, whatever their views may be and however they express them, the Government do not hide behind the civil servants. Decisions are ultimately taken by Ministers, who stand by those decisions.

Mr. Smith: I am prepared to listen to what the Minister says. He made the same point in the Adjournment debate. But it is a fact that civil servants wield great influence behind the scenes.
However strong and however willing some Ministers may be to stand up to the Civil Service, many of us in Lancashire suspect that the crux of the problem lies as much in the Civil Service as it does in the political machine. I have seen what happens in local government. I have seen these Left-wingers who, when they become chairmen of committees, become the tools of chief officers of the authority. Hon. Members are all good Left-wing lads when they sit on the Opposition benches, but when they get into Government they do as they are told and toe the line.
We are fed up with being the soft touch. We believe that the Department


should be tough. It has actually been said by civil servants to textile manufacturers "Our traditions require that we behave differently ". That has been said in the last four months. Whatever our traditions require us to do, it is time we dropped them and dealt with the situation as it is. It is time the Government acted and said "Enough is enough ". It is time the Government said "We do not agree with what the Civil Service tell us to do ; we shall act like every other nation in the world and stop being the laughing stock of the trade."
The industry has appealed for a limitation of imports. The Minister said that he would seriously consider it. We all know what that means in Government jargon. I ask the Minister to look at the document to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred. It is called "Plan for Cotton ", and was written in 1957 by the then right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson). He has now reached an eminent position—I was going to say as leader of his party, but perhaps I had better say as leader of two-thirds of his Cabinet. In 1957 he recommended that there should be an imports commission. The industry would not find that plan unattractive even now. The Minister might do worse than look at that suggestion.
I do not want to abuse the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, although it is easier for some of us to catch your eye than it is for others. I am sorry to bring politics into this, and I hope that Government supporters will understand that I am with them. There is only one way to get anything done and that is to embarrass the lads on the Government Front Bench. We have to do it politically.
It is ironic that we should be appealing to a Labour Government to save the lives and jobs of workers in Lancashire. We are tired of promises, tired of platitudes, tired of inactivity. The Minister can read out a long list of what the Government are supposed to have done but, despite what has been done, people are still coming out on short time, there is still redundancy, and mills are closing. It is always Lancashire and the North-West that suffer. It is our area that cops the cold.
If the Government fail to deal with this plea for people to have the right to work and to receive fair play—if they refuse to listen to the workers and the trade union movement of Lancashire—which is just as worked up about this as are the employers—there are those of us who will have no compunction in telling the workers of Lancashire that this is the deal they get from a Labour Government. I hope that the Minister will take notice of this and that the Opposition Front Bench will remember the advice I have given them.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that action is forthcoming and that at the end of the debate we shall be treated not to a Civil Service plea but to the Minister speaking from his heart. Those of us who know him know where his heart is in this matter. We want him to have the right to force his point of view through the Department against the people who would wish to stop him. In that way we shall ensure that the people of Lancashire get the fair deal to which they are entitled and which they have been denied for the last decade.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. David Young: I join hon. Members in a plea to the Government to act quickly and decisively to put a quota on imports of textile goods across the board in this country. Hon. Members who have textile interests are greatly concerned about this issue. The industry faces the greatest crisis it has faced in the past 30 years. The solution offered to the textile industry is rather like offering a Band-Aid plaster to a man who is to be beheaded the next day.
In 1950 there were 56 spinning mills in Bolton. Now there are 14. In the same year there were 30 weaving mills. Now there are 10. There were 20 finishing mills. Now there are 14. In 20 years, 106 mills have been reduced to 38. The work force of 31,000 has been decimated to 9,500.
The position nationally over the past 16 years, taking cotton and allied textiles only, is that a work force of 240,000 has been reduced to 85,000, while the number of spindles in the spinning industry has been reduced from 17·5 million to 2·7 million. For those hon. Members who are


not conversant with the industry, I mention three points. First, the modern textile industry is science-based and capital-intensive. Between 1970 and 1973 it accounted for 6·7 per cent. of the total capital expenditure in all manufacturing industries and 6·2 per cent. of the total manufacturing production, as measured by the net output of those years.
Second the textile and clothing industries today account for 9·2 per cent. of the number of people employed in the manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom. Third, because of traditions in the industry this employment has become localised, and the textile industry may account for 30 per cent. of employment in an area.
In view of this high concentration of textile employment in areas where other jobs are not very plentiful, do the Government regard the textile industry as expendable? If they do, let them say so and let them tell us tonight what they intend to put in its place. If they do not, let them spell out specifically how the industry can survive. There is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members who represent constituencies with textile interests that we are talking in terms of weeks, not months or years, that the are talking about jobs and about a very basic industry on which the livelihood of millions of ordinary people depends.
The writing is again on the wall. Since September 1974 in the Bolton area, five mills have closed and 500 workers have been made redundant. Since Christmas, 3,500 have been on short time. Over Easter it will be another 3,000. This industry is rightly concerned that, despite a record of investment, modernisation, productivity, good industrial relations and efficiency, it is failing because of unfair competition from abroad.
We are not arguing that we do not have traditional loyalties to certain of the old Commonwealth countries. The statistics show that we accept a far higher proportion of their goods than does any other Western nation. How can we calmly contemplate a situation in which, between January and October 1974, 1 million shirts at 21p each came in from the Eastern European countries? Our industry is fighting for survival.

We recognise that Governments may be tied with regard to the information they can give. But it is the Government's job to see that the relevant information is available. It is the Government's job to see that procedures are available so that hon. Members can put the finger on those companies which are importing these cheap goods and marking them up to the detriment of a basic industry. I will have no hesitation in doing so.
Let us have the facts. The Government should impose a quota as soon as possible—within the next few weeks—to provide a breathing space. During that time we can work out a long-term policy. On behalf of my constituents and those of hon. Members throughout Lancashire and other areas, I say that it is the Government's responsibility to act. What narks us above all is that we are told that we must abide by treaties and rules. What about the other members of the club? If they can find a way round them, why cannot 'we? What concerns us is that we do not believe that we are geared to react quickly enough to the situation.
The essence of this situation is time, just as much as measures. There are many things that can be and have been suggested. It is the Government's responsibility. They were elected by the people basically to look after the interests of Britain. In my part of the world a considerable proportion of those interests are connected with the textile industry. I do not think that a situation like this would have been allowed to arise had we been dealing with other industries.
I have said to trade unions and employers, during the period not only of this Government but of preceding Governments, that they have co-operated too much and have not been sufficiently militant. There is not one developed country which does not regard its textile industry as a special case. Are we to be alone in seeing our textile industry go to the wall? It is the Government's responsibility to act. They will be judged by that action. It is not proposals but results that will count in the long term. We ask the Government to act with decisive speed and comprehensive application. I hope that my Government will not be found wanting.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: The difficulty confronting us in this debate is to reconcile two sides. In his speech the Under-Secretary of State produced facts about the textile industry which have always been produced by successive Governments of both parties. He produced fascinating statistics and spoke of a future intention to watch carefully over the industry.
Present in the Chamber are a number of hon. Members representing constituences near mine. Some of my constituency neighbours have already spoken. This demonstrates that the industry is concentrated in one part of England. We know of redundancies, unemployment and the threat of unemployment. We know of the ultimate effect that that will have on the output of the textile industry and the effect on exports and the balance of payments. Successive Governments have always assured us that they would do something and that they were most concerned, yet still the textile industry seemed to suffer. It always seems to be the poor relation in British industry. It is difficult to work out why that should be so.
We know that this industry is efficient and that it has always enjoyed excellent labour relations. Sometimes I think that its efficiency and good labour relations have worked to its disadvantage.
For many years we have been aware of the competition faced by the industry. The Under-Secretary of State and I share one experience. A few years ago we went to Hong Kong, where we saw the competition demonstrated, and the mainland of China, where we saw some machines. If we were to see those machines in a Lancashire mill today we would ask how they could have survived since the 1940s. In those countries we saw a demonstration of the problem—cheap labour, workers employed on an almost military camp basis, turning out cheap textiles, which eventually find their way out through Hong Kong. We have been familiar with that competition for many years.
Lancashire mill workers accept that we have an obligation to the developing countries. We know the familiar example of the attitude of the Lancashire cotton workers during the Americal Civil War, when they were prepared to put conscience before pocket. We have known

of our responsibility for many years. However, the competition today comes from the developed countries, which are indulging in State trading, probably with the object of obtaining currency from the West. We are familiar with the examples and the figures. We are receiving fantastically cheap garments from Eastern Europe. How can we cope with that competition? We can think only in terms of import quotas on those goods entering the United Kingdom.
All those who are concerned have tried to analyse the problem. Members of the EEC, who are our partners, look after their own textile industries better than we look after our own industry. We have looked at the alternatives and opportunities offered to Governments. Indeed the Under-Secretary of State said that certain firms within the textile industry should buy British. I think that it is possible to exhort other firms in that way. It might also be possible to exhort the customer.
But I suspect that these are rather ineffective means. Many hon. Members have talked about the vulnerability of the British market. I do not think that the average Englishman thinks much about the source of the goods which he buys in the shop. It might be better if he did. But this is something of a myth. We have been used for many years to a variety of foreign-produced goods. There is nothing strange to us about them. The idea—if that were the Under-Secretary's idea—that this problem might be solved in some way by exhortation is in the realms of pious hope, especially at a time when we are in an economic crisis. When other firms have to survive, I can see them being tempted to buy cheap so that they may survive and so that their workers may be employed.
I come back in my analysis to what I see as the only possible remedy, which is some form of control on imports. They have to be flexible controls. I am thinking of controls imposed not annually but perhaps at intervals of six months. There is adequate machinery within the Common Market and within GATT to do this. We have sufficient cause and sufficient reasons, if only there is the will power on the part of the Government.
As for dumping, it goes right across the board. It is not only textiles which are


dumped. Farmers in my constituency will say the same, and not only of the present administration but of their predecessors. The disadvantage is that, even if we could take action—and it is difficult sometimes to prove the justification for it—it always comes too late in the day, so that it is ineffective.
Practically every hon. Member has come to the same conclusion. I do not think that it is insignificant that our arguments in this debate go right across the political spectrum. We are in effect seeking the survival of Britain's textile industry and the livelihood of those who work in that industry.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch: The textile industry is passing through one of its all too familiar cycles of recession. We have experienced them from time to time ever since the last war. All sections of the industry are working below capacity, which means mill closures, short-time working and unemployment. Ironically, the seriousness of the situation is being camouflaged by the very sensible way both sides of the industry are trying to cope with the present crisis. By resorting to short-time working and the suspension of recruitment the industry has managed to avoid large-scale redundancies. In areas where alternative employment has been available, a number of workers facing short-time working have sought alternative work, thus adding to the number of workers leaving the industry and raising the normal level of wastage. The work force in the industry is declining more rapidly than either the redunrancy or the unemployment figures indicate, and this is a very serious sign.
At this stage of a debate, many of the points have been made already. For that reason, my comments about imports will be extremely brief. The House has been told by many hon. Members of the cheap imports of shirts at 40p and suits costing between £6 and £8. Exports to this country from Turkey have rocketed nearly tenfold since 1973. That is a very significant increase.
I agree that the Government have taken restrictive action pending international consultation to establish agreed import levels. Does my hon. Friend regard the restrictive action that has already been

taken by the Government as sufficient? Similar action has been taken on imports of cotton yarn from Greece. Does my hon. Friend regard the action that the Government have already taken there as drastic enough?
I turn now to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the Ottawa Agreement, which was signed over 40 years ago. At that time the Empire, as it was—it was largely an Empire, with very few Commonwealth countries—was developing. In fact, Canada could have been described as a developing country at that time. The situation today is vastly different. I am aware that considerable parts of the Commonwealth, as it now is, are under-developed and that there is poverty. However, other parts of the Commonwealth—not small parts—are able to stand on their own feet. I sometimes wonder whether, in certain quarters, we still have the Ottawa mentality. If so, we should get rid of it quickly.
Turning to the EEC, I was interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). I thought that at one time he was almost pinpointing the EEC as the central cause of the trouble in our textile industry, but I am sure that he did not mean to convey that impression.
We must be candid about this matter. We have put the Commonwealth case in our renegotiation of terms with the Community. If we have managed to convince our Common Market partners that liberalisation is the best policy, we cannot turn round and blame them unduly for what they want. I am thinking of the 25 per cent. quota which has been introduced and was agreed only last month by this Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is not in his place at the moment, that there is mechanism within the EEC to deal with these problems. The Government could have done something about this problem if they so wished.
There is a feeling within the Community that more restrictions ought to be introduced. The EEC-wide cotton textile organisation, Eurocoton, has been pressing for a line of action which would limit exports. I should have thought


that the Government would back that line.
When we joined the EEC we secured a derogation, so that, as the Minister said, we could maintain for a three-year period controlled imports from our traditional suppliers—in particular, India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Last year the Council of Ministers agreed to a formula whereby there would be a more equitable distribution of the growth in controlled textile imports from the Community. That matter was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, who apparently did not think there was much in it. I do not share his view. I believe that that will benefit this country.
Among the member States we are by far the largest importer of textiles from the low-cost developing countries. Thus, the application of this formula will mean that in many cases the United Kingdom will be taking a much smaller share in the overall growth of textile imports. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne was right in saying that this is a long-term policy and that we want something that is far more immediate. The effects of the agreement will be long-term rather than short-term.
I appeal to the Government, not to direct—that is too strong a term—but to try to persuade certain of our nationalised industries and Government Departments to buy British textile goods. I am delighted that the north-western area of my union—the National Union of Mineworkers—has seen the National Coal Board and impressed on it that this should be its policy. We in Lancashire who represent textile interests have sometimes been accused of whining too soon. That is a wrong accusation.
This debate is timely, and I hope that the Government will take further action. Certain actions which they have taken have been good, but they have not been drastic enough. It is no good closing the stable door when the horse has bolted. I ask the Minister to think of taking more immediate action.

9.56 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the Minister, in his closing remarks, suggested that the textile industry should use the present depressed

conditions to re-equip and reinvest it seemed to me tantamount to asking a man to dig his garden when his house is burning. Who will continue to put money into new investment when he scarcely has the "brass" to keep his machines turning and, moreover, when he does not know whether the Government want a textile industry in this country?
Like many other Lancashire Members, I am desperately worried about the situation in textiles, and I am sorry that the Minister is not present to witness the great concern about it expressed by Members on both sides of the House. In my constituency, no less than 7·2 per cent. of the people are engaged directly in textiles and 2·5 per cent. on clothing and knitwear, making 9·7 per cent. We have an unemployment rate of no less than 5·8 per cent.—nearly double the national average.
The situation began to get bad last year, but it has gone downhill very rapidly in the last few months. Ours is the only developed country which does not seem to care a tuppenny damn about our home industry, as long as we are fulfilling what the Secretary of State has described as our traditional rÔle and are providing a market for developing countries. Frankly, I believe that our first duty is to our own workers and families.
In Lancaster, in addition to those who have lost their jobs or have retired early, the number of people on short time has fluctuated up to about the 1,010 mark. But this is by no means the whole story, as women rarely sign on as unemployed. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, when a woman's wage packet goes there is tremendous hardship, particularly in a low-wage area such as mine. When I was in the market the other day, I was standing behind a woman who was buying half a pound of chicken necks for her family. That is what it means in real terms to the people in the area from which I come.
It is equally serious that one of the firms in my area, employing 1,300 people, is making almost entirely for stock in the hope that things will improve. It has about £100 million worth of stock on hand and it can continue for two months, at most, building its stock before there are major closures in addition to those which have already


occurred. No other country is allowing its textile industry to be massacred by cheap dumped imports —
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may he proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock and that the Motion relating to Firearms may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.— [Mr. Harper.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There is no country in the world that is allowing its textile industry to be massacred by imports coming in at well below the cost of production. Australia, Canada and Japan have taken action. The Germans, the Dutch, the French and the Italians are working closely together to see what can be done about severely restricting imports, whereas the United Kingdom Government have allowed the foreign share of the market in terms of fibre to rise from one-half to two-thirds. While the market has fallen by 26 per cent. our United Kingdom share of our own market has fallen by 50 per cent.
As my learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has pointed out this just is not playing the game. We are "carrying the can" for all other countries. It is not that we are less efficient than overseas producers. There has been massive investment in the industry over the past few years. The industry now uses every conceivable modern scientific technique, continuous shift working and so on. There is nothing more that we can do to help ourself. Only the Government can now step in to give us a new lease of life.
It is essential that there should be an immediate cut in imports under the provisions of Article 112 of GATT or Article 109 of the Rome Treaty on the grounds that the tremendous textile imports in 1974 are threatening our balance of pay

ments, which is a valid reason for taking action. But it is not only imports which threaten disaster. The March Budget so reduced company liquidity that firms destocked on a massive scale, and the November Budget only partially put things right.
The Minister in his opening remarks suggested that destocking may have ended. I wish that I shared his optimism but, frankly, I do not. If we are to stop this destocking, if we are to improve company liquidity and if jobs are to be saved in intermediate areas of Lancashire, such as mine, these have to be given development area status so that they have the advantage of the regional employment premium, which in itself would save jobs because of the liquidity which it injects into firms. Company taxation must be cut if these firms are to keep their heads above water. It is too late to act when they have gone down the spout and the receiver is knocking at the door. The Government must act now if a total collapse of the textile industry is to be prevented.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: I believe that the essence of the tragedy of the textile industry is that decent and valuable people are unemployed or on short time without adequate income. Unemployment is always ugly, but it is particularly ugly and unpleasant when set against rising prices. Unemployment is morally and economically unforgivable, and those engaged in textiles, normally the most tranquil of people—too much so, perhaps—are now weary, as I am well aware, of having been tolerant.
Successive Governments have preached policies of wage restraint, improved efficiency, increased production and so on, and those who work in the mills have always responded. It makes me wonder about the social contract and how these people are expected to respond to it when they have met all its circumstances and conditions and then find themselves out of work as a consequence. It is simply beyond me. At this period in the turmoil in Lancashire we find that despite great endeavour the situation is black and will become desperate unless immediate action is taken to halt the decline.
We recognise the Government's problems. There is a reduction in demand.


there is international competition, and we are a trading nation. I recognise, too, that the Government are reluctant to interfere with the structure of the market. I would that other nations were as fastidious. We are aware of the problems facing the Government, but we are determined that the events of the 1930s will never again emerge in Lancashire.
This debate should not be used merely to describe the situation. Those who have constituents directly involved in the misery have some constructive suggestions to place before the Minister, and I hope that we can expect constructive action from his Department.
Perhaps I may speak briefly of our attitude towards the developing nations. The intrusion of cheap cloth is not just from the developing nations. It is coming from developed Western countries, including the United States. I remain convinced that we have a moral obligation to the emerging nations, and the textile industry has a proud record in this regard, but there are many ways of providing aid, and I am not prepared to remain snug and comfortable in this place while others carry the burden of my virtue by becoming unemployed. The wherewithal to give support to the less fortunate countries must be found and acquired from a wider range of industries and individuals.
I was revolted to learn that during the recent growing season in the Community in Europe £19 million worth of fruit and vegetables were maliciously destroyed in order to maintain high prices. I think that that is an obscenity in a hungry world. There are other areas in respect of which we can provide support and aid, and I think that instances such as that must be terribly offensive to the developing countries.
To control imports of textiles it is necessary to insist on complete documentation at the port of entry. It is necessary to establish that the importer and possibly the Department accept responsibility for applying the quota regulations, rather than the present system whereby the home industry has to produce evidence of abuse.
I believe, further, that a global quota should be introduced which can be varied when conditions improve. When we apply quotas to a particular country,

there are means of directing the goods through a third country and avoiding the regulations.
Above all, we need swift and effective action. In Lancashire, and Chorley in particular, the economy is not buoyant. For the unemployed textile worker there are few alternative sources of employment, and often when a mill closes, particularly in a rural area, a whole community dies.
I am prepared to abbreviate my speech. Most of what I intended to say has been said several times, and extremely eloquently. I appeal to the Minister to act, and to act immediately, to help those who have served the country so well in the past.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: One of the disadvantages of coming into the debate at this stage is that most of the relevant data and the statistics have been shared with the House, but one of the advantages of coming in at this stage is that one can hightlight particular points which may not have been shared in depth during the debate.
I hope the House will forgive me if I state and return to the fact that alongside all the other areas in the United Kingdom drastically affected by this recession and depression in the textile industry Northern Ireland is in a state of crisis and takes its place side by side with the other areas represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Northern Ireland accounts for one-third of the total value of man-made fibres produced in the United Kingdom. As the depression will involve the whole of the Kingdom there are great problems and great concern in Northern Ireland. There is great concern because we already have double the national average unemployment. Not only does that problem relate to the man-made fibre industry, but in a real way it affects manufactured goods.
I refer specifically to the shirt industry. Northern Ireland has one-third of the total United Kingdom shirt industry. I was impressed by the comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the housewives in his constituency whose wages are needed to


balance the budget in their homes. He talked about the added income which was so necessary for the woman in his area.
I thank God that there is the opportunity tonight to get beyond the sectarian issues in Northern Ireland and to point out that the entire Province depends on a rejuvenation and stimulus within the textile industry. From Londonderry right through to Antrim and Belfast there are many thousands of men and women—particularly women—who are totally dependent upon the industry. It is vital that something is done very quickly for the home Kingdom and especially for Northern Ireland. It appears to me that the immediate but profound need of the textile industry is import restraint. We have heard that need expressed again and again by Members from both sides of the House.
Let us consider the volume of imports. In 1974 that volume represented £1,090 million. In the fourth quarter of 1974 two-thirds of the fibre supplied to the home market was supplied by importation. Those are crucial and startling figures. I ask the Minister to bear those two vital statistics in mind. There has been no real improvement in 1975. Some people have referred to a slight improvement in January of this year, but that, as much as anything, is a direct result of an exhortation to buy to beat inflation. The truth is that in 1975 there has been no real improvement.
There are many reasons for the lack of improvement, but among them are two of importance. First, we have been told by the British Textile Confederation that many of the large retailers—they are retailers responsible for approximately 50 per cent. of man-made textiles —are dealing almost entirely in imported goods. That is a crucial factor when we are considering the volume of imports. Secondly, we have been reminded repeatedly that we have an obligation to the developing countries. Surely the Minister's insistence upon that obligation cannot seriously be maintained in the light of the crisis in the home industry.
The access which imported textiles have to our home market must be made more difficult in the interest of the survival of the British textile industry. The confederation has said that the Govern-

ment should reduce imports of manufactured textiles and clothing by £220 million. That represents approximately 20 per cent. of the amount imported in 1974. It also said that a strict surveillance should be kept on a quarterly basis to ensure that licences to import should be granted and renewed only to those who adhere to the restriction of reducing imports of manufactured textiles to 20 per cent. below the 1974 level.
I know that the Minister has a deep concern about this matter. I ask him to try to implement this sound and logical advice in the near future. What the BTC is saying is that a licence should be granted only on a quarterly basis if those firms were prepared to import a quarter of 80 per cent. of the present level of manufactured textiles.
An integral part of import restraint is prices control. Reverting to my original case about reducing imports by about £220 million, foreign importers could get around that by drastically reducing prices and so keeping volume at a distressing level. Also, the price of items coining into this country is so small compared to the cost of producing made-up goods that one of the only ways of stemming that importation is to insist that those who buy at a low price sell for a comparable profit. Many retailers are importing very cheap fabric and made-up goods, none of which appears in the shops at comparably low prices. They are always at fairly steep prices, much the same as British-made goods. Some price control should be imposed.
Last year, the chairman of the BTC said, in effect, "We are not afraid of fair and reasonable competition, but it is impossible to meet the kind of pricing which obtains because of foreign imports." That is a fair comment. We in Britain import well over 50 per cent. of the number of shirts sold here. In Japan, apparently, there is a crisis, because they have reached the phenomenal figure of 7 per cent. Yet we are talking about what we might or should do and what is possible under certain agreements. If the Japanese regard 7 per cent. as a crisis figure when ours is over 50 per cent. is it not ludicrous that action is not taken immediately to curb imports?
The cumulative effect of all these points is that unemployment will hit the United


Kingdom severely. So far, the large corporations have tried to avert that tragedy by stockpiling, but we know from one corporation that within two months it will have reached its maximum, and the only alternative then is unemployment.
The Minister has said that EEC agreements will come to our rescue in about a year. It has been said categorically that within four months our industry could be absolutely flattened. We cannot afford to talk in the long term. We are thinking in terms of months ahead. The EEC agreement which has been offered as a possible solution is not, therefore, particularly relevant.
In conclusion, I make two brief points. I reiterate what has been said. We should

buy British. We should stimulate demand for local products. The Government should set an example in this respect. The defence services, local government bodies, hospital boards, school boards, nationalised industries—the lot—should buy British. The Government should also encourage the community at large so to do.
I cannot believe that a Labour Government would betray the trust of the working people of this Kingdom and that they would be so insensitive as to retain various agreements while their own people went to the wall.

Mr. Speaker: I make an appeal for really short speeches, otherwise there will be many disappointments.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Jim Marshall: A great deal has been heard from hon. Members who represent constituencies in Lancashire, and rightly so particularly as over the past few months they have been leading the campaign at parliamentary level for the Government to take some action on the textile industry. We have also heard one speaker who represents a Yorkshire constituency and who drew attention to the problems in the woollen industry.
However, I ought to draw attention to the problems in the East Midlands, particularly in the greater Leicester area which, as the House probably knows, is the home of the hosiery and knitting industry. I remind the House that the difficulties being faced there are equally as grave, both in an economic sense and in the human context, as those of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I thought it incumbent upon me to draw attention to these problems today.
The point has been made in the general context, but it cannot be made too often. The textile industry is facing a crisis of cataclysmic proportions. We ought to make that point repeatedly. These difficulties have not appeared overnight. They have been coming upon the industry for years, and successive Governments have ignored exhortations from the industry and trade unions over many years.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble). It would appear from what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we are likely to be offered too little far too late. I urge the Minister, in common with everyone else, to convince the Department of Industry—and to convey our thoughts to the Department of Trade—that far more urgent and stringent action and controls are required than those we have hitherto been offered.
I can best draw attention to the problems of greater Leicester by telling the House—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) smiles. I am not making a particular constituency speech. However, one family in three in greater Leicester has some link with the textile industry, and that fact bears comparison with any example in Lancashire. Thirty thousand people are employed in the tex-

tile industry in greater Leicester. At present 60 per cent. of those are working short time.
Therefore, this is a national problem. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I conveyed these feelings to him months ago. This is the magnitude of the problem we face.
A further analogy with the woollen industry in Yorkshire is that the hosiery and knitting industry in the greater Leicester area is based upon small firms. The main factory, plus branch factories employs about 5,000 people, but two-thirds of the factories in greater Leicester employ less than 200 employees each. These people are accustomed to the cold draft of competition and to the ups and downs of the normal cycle of this industry. But they are at one on this matter. The employers and the trade union, which in this case is the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, feel that they are being subjected to unfair competition from low-cost countries, particularly South-East Asia low-cost countries, and that their problems arise mainly from that unfair competition and not from the de-stocking process or the running down process to which the Under-Secretary referred, or the normal cyclical nature of this trade.
It is far deeper than that. They have been raising the question of unfair competition with the Department for many years and it is one I wish to reinforce. The point has been made quite well by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that it is always said that Britain is a trading nation and is dependent upon good trading relations with other countries. That is all very well in normal circumstances, but we are not in normal circumstances. The businessmen claim. and they are backed up by the unions. that they are facing unfair competition.
Other hon. Members have made the point that the consumer is not getting any material advantage from the import of low-cost articles. I have a letter but I will not quote the name of the sender in case action is taken against him by his colleagues. The person concerned is a hosiery and knitwear manufacturer in the greater Leicester area. He says:
 We feel that the damage is caused by wholesalers and retailers requiring a bigger margin.


where they buy cheaply but retail the garments in question at a price comparable to a similar line of British manufacture, i.e. mark-up on our garments could be in the region of £1·00 per garment but a comparable imported garment benefits from a mark-up of probably £1·50 The British public are therefore not feeling the benefit of the reduced purchase price and this is not assisting the Cost of Living Index in any way but only adding to our balance of payment difficulties.
I could continue to quote similar examples, but time forbids. There is also increasing evidence that there is a cartel of five importers bringing in all the knitted manufactured goods being imported into Britain from the three South-East Asia countries we have heard about this evening. The Under-Secretary might also like to know that two merchant banks have financed the setting up of factories in Taiwan with the deliberate intention of producing low-cost goods for import into Britain, and that they intend to get their capital back in two and a half to three years. They are therefore benefiting in two ways. They are getting their capital back quickly, and it is within that time scale that the Department of Industry would have to work under present legislation if it wished to prove dumping. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to investigate the evidence about the cartel and also about the activities of the two merchant banks which have been setting up factories in Taiwan.
There is also the effect that the downturn in the hosiery and knitwear industry has on allied industries. There is in Leicester a textile machinery industry which is dependent to a large degree on home orders. However, with under-capacity in hosiery and knitting there is a distinct lack of confidence about placing orders for new knitting machinery. That has meant a rundown in the work force in the machinery industry as well as in the hosiery and knitting industry itself.
I do not pretend that there is any easy solution. The unions in Leicester are trying to convince the public to buy British, and they are trying to convince the department stores to do the same. One well known Leicester store has decided to buy British goods and not the cheap imported variety. I shudder to think what effect that is likely to have on its profitability. There is a fair possibility that if that firm continues its present practice its profitability will

decrease. Instead of action by individual firms, we need concerted action by all industry, exhorted by central Government, to buy British and have nothing to do with foreign goods.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has so far offered far too little, too late. We need quotas and further strict limitations on the importation of knitwear goods. I urge my hon. Friend to introduce them as a matter of urgency.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: I start by declaring that I have no interest in the matter. Although I was employed in the textile industry for about 17 years, I am no longer directly involved.
Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I speak for what can be described as the forgotten county tonight. It is only now that we have had two successive speeches by Members representing Leicestershire. It might have been assumed from what previous speakers said that there was no such thing as the knitting industry. The hon. Gentleman has put over our case extremely well.
I am not ashamed to refer to my constituency directly, because my principal conurbation, the Hinckley urban district, has about 50 per cent. of those who work in it employed in the textile industry, and hundreds go each day from Coalville, for instance, into Leicester. We have a close concern in the future of the industry. Whole families derive their income from it.
The knitting sector is undoubtedly as seriously hit as any. Import penetration into the outerwear market in 1971 was slightly more than 20 per cent. Last year it was about 40 per cent. That picture is repeated for other commodities. About 60 per cent. of those employed in the industry are on short time.
The Minister has told us something of the action the Government have taken in conjunction with our Community partners. But what exactly is it? I believe that the hon. Gentleman only made reference to knitwear. We must press him for details of the understanding he has reached with our Community partners. What is the negotiating mandate which has been given? What knitted goods are covered?
According to Wednesday's Leicester Mercury, a long list of other goods is covered, including underwear, but excluding certain types of socks. But will they be covered on a Community or regional basis? If the information in the Leicester Mercury is correct, why are certain types of underwear left out? Why should men's underpants be left out and not men's vests? It makes no sense to those in the industry.
May we have from the Minister further details than he has been prepared to give so far? Is it true that certain of our partners in Europe will be able to exercise restraint unilaterally on certain items? I think that socks and half-hose may be among the items covered. Although the position of the half-hose sector in Leicestershire is not bad, if our Community partners exercise restraint unilaterally trade will be diverted from them to this country. If that were to happen, will the Minister act quickly: the view of the trade is that what happened in the past will happen again, that is, that action will be taken far too late.
I have argued with Conservative Ministers on more than one occasion for a system of orderly marketing, that is to say, taking a level of imports at a given starting point and developing those imports at a regular increased rate which would not disrupt the industry. I understand that part of the "burden sharing "agreement invokes this principle. If it does, may we know the agreed growth rate which forms part of the understanding?
We need a justification for quota restrictions. Most people do not want restrictions to be imposed. But the justification for quota restrictions in the textile trade is the instability of its operation. The instability is due to the lack of control over the raw material and its pricing—whether natural or synthetic fibres—and a lack of control over wages in the exporting countries. Those two factors add up to the bulk of the cost in the hosiery industry at least, which is not as heavily capitalised as are some parts of the industry. Immense fluctuations can occur which cause great damage to the industry.
If we are to have quota restrictions the question arises at what base point

should we start. The MFA when it comes into operation will take 1974 as the base point. That is too late. The Knitting Industries Federation, working as usual closely with the union, also agrees that we need a 20 per cent. cut, and I am glad that the Minister is to look seriously at this. I prefer not to take an absolute figure of 20 per cent., but to take as the base point the figure for 1973. That is fair, as I have been arguing this approach for three or four years. If we start in retrospect with 1973 we shall effectively achieve a cut of about 20 per cent. The value of that cut would be about £30 million on the import of knitted goods, which represents 7,000 or 8,000 jobs. In the knitting industry for which I speak these are worth saving.
I do not like quotas. Many hon. Members who have been calling for a "buy British "campaign must realise the effect that this would have on prices. But the unusual nature of the textile industry demands unusual actions. We must accept the principle of quota restriction. We must instigate an orderly increase in imports, with the added benefit which comes from our membership of the EEC, that is to say, with the burden sharing with our partners which will work to our advantage. I join with all hon. Members who have spoken in asking the Minister to take the necessary steps, without delay.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: Amidst the controversy about the Common Market a comment by Aneurin Bevan has been used repeatedly—" Why gaze in the crystal ball when you can read the book? ". In this debate the number and geographical extent of the voices raised have spelt out the serious crisis which faces the textile industry. The Minister should listen to those voices and pay regard to the evidence which is already on the table from the industry. That crisis is there to be seen by anyone who looks.
The industry is vast and complex. It is interdependent, which means that all sections eventually suffer from the afflictions of any one section. I am pleased, therefore, that we have heard voices from Lancashire, Yorkshire, Leicestershire and other areas. It spells out the great area of interest covered by the textile industry. The industry is fiercely independent and is not used to treading the corridors of


power and hammering at the door of No.10. It has suffered difficulties and crises. It has always overcome them itself. It has been modernizes—manily at puplic expense. The workers have seen their jobs disappear.
Unfortunately, that reduction in jobs has not been favourably reflected in wage packets or conditions of work The textile industry is in need of great protection through import controls. It will not be happy with the message it has been given tonight by the Minister. I go back to my question: "Why gaze in a crystry knows and we know what is the position. Surveillance is not what is needed now.
The tragedy of the textile industry is that its misfortunes have coincided with a great argument over economic policy within the Government. The industry is calling for import control. At the moment there is an alternative economic strategy being argued by informed and articulate economists and politicians, the central theme of which is the need for an alternative strategy based on import controls.
I fear that the Government are loth to give the protection which the industry demands because if they were seen to give that protection it would be seen as a caving-in of their central economic policy. The message that should go out tonight to the industry is that for the first time the workers should organize themselves of such organization in the march that is to take place next week. The workers must exert political pressure. We can provide the spearhead, but the steam must come from the workers. I hope that they will organize to that end.
Textiles have proved that they are a special case. If action does not come it will mean the virtual death of the industry. I trust that the debate is not industry. a public relations exercise. If it is, the Government will bring upon their shoulders the wrath of the industry and its workers. We should not turn away from import controls. Other countries have adopted them—America, Australia Canada—without difficulties. We should follow that path. A decision to that

effect should be announced soon after this debate.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: It was my intention to speak briefly in this debate. Having listened to the excellent and all-embracing contributions I propose to be even more brief and confine myself to putting two questions. Before doing that I want to make one point. It is ironic that, had the textile industry been asking for money from the Government, its case would have been met quickly. That is the sad thing about it money. It is simply asking to be allowed to compete on fair and equal terms in a competitive world.
The present situation calls for emergency measures. Can the Minister go further than he has done and, if he cannot say that the Government have emergency proposals to meet these conditions, can he tell us that there might be a temporary halt to the present flood of imports? I believe this to be crucial.
Secondly, how far and how quickly can we expect the member States of the bility for the underdeveloped countries? When the Common Market was being formed I said that I thought one of the points in its favour was that the member States would share the burden of textile imports. I hope that I shall not be disappointed. I think that the United Kingdom has carried the can for long enough.
Thirdly, do the Government, or any of their advisers, regard the textile industry as expendable? I ask that question because a story is current in my part of Lancashire that the Government are prepared to write off the industry. I want the Minister to say that that is not true. If the Government are to do any good for Lancashire tonight they must kill that rumour and go some way towards helping this stricken industry.

10.46 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I appreciate the vigour and courage shown in many of the speeches of Government sup- porters,especially those which dealt the cotton and synthetics side of the industry. However, I should like to concentrate on the woollen and worsted


industry, some of which is situated in my area.
The Minister's speech was lop-sided. It showed little appreciation of the great hardships experienced by the industry in Yorkshire, which is in the grip of the worst crisis for 50 years. The people of Yorkshire expect confirmation that the woollen and worsted industries will be preserved and that they will have a viable life.
In 1974 the United Kingdom imported 279,000 suits from Romania, 226,000 from Yugoslavia and many more from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This means that 22 per cent. of all suits bought in the United Kingdom last year were imported from those countries. Although we all want free competition, how can we gauge a market price for the products of a society or system which has no market? These suits are entering the country dirt cheap, and this must be checked.
It is said that the problems of the industry are recurrent and that the downturn is cyclical. The industry needs special action, since it is not facing a normal cyclical downturn. The industry accepted these downturns in the past and did not run straight to the Government for help. However, the industry now needs help because it faces a special situation.
We know that problems arose with regard to commodities, the price of which shot up, when the people with fixed contracts could not make adjustments. Then we faced the problems of the wages explosion and thresholds. The woollen and cotton industries, enjoy good industrial relations but, since the social contract means nothing, militants in the industry's unions are demanding action from their leaders. One of those leaders lost a court case against Left-wing extremists two weeks ago. In two weeks' time the unions will be making a claim for a 35 per cent. increase, which will render the industry even less profitable and competitive, when cash flow is appallingly bad.
The textiles industry is the fifth largest exporting industry of the United Kingdom. It exports one-third of its production. One firm even exports 70 per cent. of its production. The chairman,

however, says this is the worst crisis in his 52 years—and his firm at the top end of the market is doing relatively well. However, there is instability in the industry and the work force of that firm has been on short-time working for two to three months.
Almost 60 per cent. of the industry's work force of 100,000 is on short-time working. Many mills are now working a three-day week, which is something about which representatives of the present Government used to pour scorn on us. Now the three-day week is a reality. What do the Government intend to do about it? Many mills are closing down. The unemployment figures reflect that fact. However, I believe those figures hide the true situation, especially with respect to women. But this crisis is clearly of a unique kind because of imports. It is not just the Iron Curtain countries, but the Far East and Portugal, who have undermined the acrylic sector and cheap woollen end of the business. Mills in places like Dewsbury and Colne Valley in this sector find Portuguese goods undermining their costs of production by between 12 and 14 per cent. Last year, 4·5 million pairs of Portuguese trousers arrived, out of a total trouser operation in this country of 10·5 million pairs. By any yardstick, the industry is in a serious crisis. There is a downturn to 251 million kilos as against 287 kilos in 1973 in fibre consumption, which is the real test for the whole industry.
What do the Government propose to do about it? The future looks shaky for many people, especially when they face the prospect of the Industry Act and the capital transfer tax, which will cripple the small family business, and of the Employment Protection Bill which they fear will impose quite intolerable extra financial burdens upon them. The future on Europe has been uncertain, and, with all these imports coming in, something specific must be done.
Let us be clear about it. We are asking not for permanent protection but for emergency action on a short-term basis. But, even short-term, this is a fight to survive. We want emergency measures. There are examples in almost every other country. There is, for instance, the 50 per cent. deposit scheme operating in Italy which was got through GATT


because of the Italian balance of payments crisis. Cannot we get the same or similar terms through Article 12 of the GATT arrangements? Let us remember that it is Italy which is flooding our own market, destroying the cheap woollen end by increasing her exports to this country from £7 million in 1973 to £15 million in 1974, which the mail order firms in particular are snapping up.
With sudden surges of imports seriously threatening our whole industry, there is a valid case for immediate action, and the Government will have to do more than promise "careful consideration ". The time has long passed for that.
The Minister spoke about the cycle turning up. When it does, what state will the industry be in when it is so weak already? We will find not only our domestic market undermined, but our main export markets, too. Our main market in Canada is closing to us because of Japanese competition. Although the Japanese are not exporting much to this country because of a bilateral argreement, they are pushing hard into other export markets of ours. They deliberately manufacture for stock and they have to get rid of massive stocks on a market which shows little activity.
So I do not see the future turning round this year or next year. Unless we support our industry now, it will be so undermined that, when the roundabout turns again and the market picks up, we will not have the size of industry, the rate of employment or the efficient firms to be able to compete effectively.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: At this late hour, like the last six or so hon. Members to have spoken, I shall speak only briefly.
The message which has gone out tonight from this House is that there is a crisis in the textile industry, and that we want immediate action.
I realise the constraints upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I know where his heart lies, but I am not sure that the action proposed by him will do any good. It is rather like putting a plaster on the arm of a man who is bleeding to death.
On Monday, 3rd March the Empress Mill in my constituency was to close. That really sparked off a situation which had been simmering for a long time. It was that the textile workers, for the first time, demonstrated they had traditionally not exercised any muscle. It is not true that the industry has always overcome its problems. What happens is that anyone who keeps losing a bit every time eventually comes down to nothing. The Lancashire textile industry is down to about a quarter or a fifth of the capacity that it had in its heyday, and it will go down more.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was right, although he stole my expression. I believe that there is a "Bonga Wonga" mentality amongst our civil servants. They do not mind Lancashire cotton workers carrying the burden. They do not mind putting our workers on the dole. But it has to stop, and we want immediate action.
The first spark to set fire to this action was in Ince. For the first time, the textile workers said, "We have had enough. We demand action." Hon. Members who were with me on that day, including the hon. Member for Rochdale promised them action. I intend to see that they get it.
I suspect that the measures proposed will not be enough. I warn the Government that if they are not sufficient, we shall see that they are carried further.
Following the deputation, we managed to get a speedy meeting with Lord Kearton on the Wednesday. Again, I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and Westhoughton (Mr. Stott). We managed to get a reprieve for the Empress Mill at least until the Wakes holiday, which is the first week in July. I intend that reprieve to be permanent. I am sure that my hon. Friends and others on both sides of the House intend it to be permanent, too.
When we had that demo, somebody said, "Michael, this is Custer's last stand." I said, "It is not Custer's last stand, because we know what happened to Custer. It will not happen to the textile industry. If there are any scalps to hang from our belts, they will be the Government's." This is El Alamein on imports.
I warn the Government that we want immediate action. This country is the softest touch in the world. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that we have stopped being the world's policeman, that we shall stop being the world's protector, and that we shall trim our defence costs according to that philosophy because we cannot do it any more. I believe that we must also stop being the world's conscience.
We have been told that other countries have taken action and that that action has not seemed to impair their trade. We must take similar action.
I had a Question down about dumping. Proving dumping to our officials is like trying to box fog. It is impossible. Other countries do it far more speedily. I asked whether we should alter the rules to provide that, an interested party in the United Kingdom having made out a prima facie case, it should be the countries. or their agents, doing the dumping which should stand trial, not us. I have been told that that matter was given a lot of consideration, but that it will not be done.
We have been told about 20p shirts and £5 suits. I have not seen any when I have been round the shops. However, I have seen the labels, "Made in Hong Kong ". Those articles are the same price, if not dearer, as shirts which carry the tab, "Made in Great Britain ". Therefore, somebody is making a packet.
The result is that our workers are being put on the dole, the community is losing its purchasing power, and, because of the terrific mark-up on these imported goods, there is an added impetus to get more in to get more lovely lolly. That is the cycle.
I put down another Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asking what monitoring her Department does to prevent that kind of thing happening. I got the usual cotton wool answer from the Government—we must be frank ; we got the same treatment from the Tory Government as well—that nothing was being done about it. Again, I think that action should be taken immediately.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) said that if the textile industry was asking for money, it should get it. I am asking for money for the

industry. Courtaulds and the other big manufacturers have hundreds of millions of pounds of stock. Governments all over the world, including the United States of America—do not let us blame the cheap producing countries ; these boys are clued up today as well—are assisting their industries with cash. We want the textile industry to be assisted with its cash flow crisis. There is a cash flow crisis, and it will get worse.
I tell the Government that we want immediate action. We do not want these investigatory procedures. which will cause delay to the extent that the 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. capacity that we have now will be whittled down to nought.
When we meet our colleagues from the trade union side next Tuesday, we want to be able to speak to them with the full confidence that action will be taken immediately to save the Lancashire textile industry.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that the wind-up speeches will begin at 25 minutes past 11.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I declare an interest in a family company with which I have been closely connected for the past 40 years. My constituency can claim no connection with the cotton industry, although its 2,000 hotels use a large quantity of textiles and we have one or two light industries in the making-up trade.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Maguire rightly said that the message must go out to the Government that there is a crisis in the industry. A special emergency committee was set up a month or so ago. Many of us were exhorted to write direct to the Prime Minister about the crisis. I received an extremely courteous reply from the right hon. Gentleman, not only assuring me of his personal concern, but acknowledging that there was a crisis. Therefore, the fact that there is a crisis is well known in Government circles. In view of the letter I received from the Prime Minister. I regret that he has not arranged with his Secretary of State to be in his place to show his personal interest and concern. More is the pity.
There has been a unanimous view expressed in the debate. I cannot remember a debate in which there has been a


greater degree of agreement. Like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I am baffled by the Government's attitude. Enormous hardship and anxiety is being caused in the industry, and particularly in Northern Ireland. In our firm we specialise in protective clothing for use in hospitals and hotels. Tens of thousands of nurses' aprons, dresses and industrial overalls used in this country have come from the Far East, Pakistan and India. This is causing most of the trouble. Products which sell at prices well below production costs in this country do not give us an earthly chance of securing contracts of any size. This will eventually create further unemployment.
It is an indictment on successive Governments that they have not faced the problems of the textile industry, specially on the clothing manufacturing side. There have been numerous debates, endless questions and numerous deputations, and still we make no progress. I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) next week in the demonstration in order to show my displeasure at the Government's attitude. I hope that the Government will take action and that imports will be cut to a minimum in order to revive confidence in the industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Lamond. Order. Before the hon. Member begins his speech, may I point out that the House will notice that there is a desire on the part of hon. Members with constituency interests to take part. I would appeal to hon. Members to take three or four minutes only in which to make their salient points. Then they will all be accommodated.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to comply and I leave aside the rather lengthy and carefully prepared speech I have brought with me. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that it could come in handy later.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the Front Bench because he has knowledge of this subject and has been a good companion to me in Oldham for five years. He is aware

of my kindly regard for him and therefore will not be unduly upset if I take him up on some of the points he made in opening the debate.
I do not think that surveillance will be of the slightest use. It would have been some time ago, but it is disgraceful that it is only being set up now. The Government have an organisation which always carefully surveys everything which happens, and it is not good enough to say that they are considering the question of quotas. We do not want them considered, but applied.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would quickly jump to the Dispatch Box to defend civil servants, but I must ally myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) when he said that there is a feeling in Lancashire that civil servants have far too much influence on departmental policy. I do not say that is the case, but that there is a feeling in Lancashire that that is the case. The reason is the unwavering policy over many years on textiles.
Twenty years ago this month there was a debate in this House on the cotton industry, and the plans which were being made were, in essence the same plans as those mentioned tonight.
This is not a new crisis. It happens that three separate elements have arrived at the same point together. There is only one answer: quota restrictions, realistic ones which are placed so high that no one needs to worry about them ; and quota restrictions with no growth element in them. In the remainder of the few inadequate minutes I have to express the concern of my constituents I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to carry that message to his Secretary of State. We know his difficulty. He cannot give us any more than he gave to begin with, because naturally he set out his stall at the beginning, but if I were in his position I would be welcoming the unanimous call of this debate because it strengthens his hand immeasurably when he goes to put forward the proposals he must advance to see that a fair deal is given to the textile industry.
There is no doubt that we have aided my hon. Friend this evening. I hope that he can carry out his aims and fulfil


the wishes of the people he was elected to represent here.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: We have heard speeches this evening from many hon. Members who live in textile areas and who are concerned in the textile industry, like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who live among the mills and know that every five years we have a depression. We are witnessing a recession of unparalleled severity in the textile industry.
First, there is a downturn in the world economy. Secondly, and this the crux of the matter for us here, the United Kingdom is a soft option for the importing of textile goods. We are a soft touch. We have what I call an open door for textile imports. It is an ever-open door, and the goods are flooding through.
The effect of this open-door policy in our area is such that only last month 150,000 textile operators out of a total of 830,000 were put on short time. The hon. Member for Rochdale, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), have spoken of the effect on unemployment in our areas. If this trend continues, it could be that we shall have 250,000 unemployed. In February, 8,000 workers were made redundant.
The competition which the United Kingdom textile industry has to face has assumed startling proportions. One of the things that it has to face is dumping. Let me take one example, that of shirts. Chief imports of shirts from Hong Kong, Korea, Portugal, Taiwan, Pakistan, India, Romania and Poland have flooded our markets and brought disaster to our textile industry.
Let me give one example of this disaster which I think serves to illustrate the fact that we cannot allow the present situation to continue. In the first nine months of 1974, imports of shirts from Pakistan rose by 243 per cent. compared with the same period in 1973. The increase from India in the same period was 276 per cent. What other industry in this country could put up with competition of that nature?
Our Customs returns show that from January to November 1974 more than 1 million shirts were dumped here from

Romania and Poland at a cost of 20p a shirt. I do not know whether any hon. Member present has seen a shirt costing 20p, but I have not, which suggests to me that somebody, somewhere, is making a great deal of profit, and it is not the textile industry. In other words, shirts are being imported at a price lower than the cost of the cheapest raw material here, and the effect on our shirt industry is dangerous.
To date, 55 per cent. of our manufacturers have had to reduce their labour force. In six months, seven factories have closed, 28 per cent. of our companies have reduced their output by between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent., and 64 per cent. of our companies report that orders are down by 50 per cent. on last year. This is grim evidence of the parlous situation in the shirt industry, and what is happening here is being repeated in other sectors of the textile industry. Damage to our textile industry on this scale could within a short time produce unemployment on a disastrous national scale.
I should like to offer my answers to the problem. First, it is against this grim background that I call for across the board import restraints as an emergency measure. The object of the restraint must be to reduce the quantity of imports and to transfer a significant volume of orders from foreign to domestic sources of supply.
Secondly, we should aim to reduce imports by £220 million to a level 20 per cent. below that of 1974. Thirdly, importers and buyers should be warned of tighter Government controls. Fourthly, anti-dumping legislation should be introduced, and introduced immediately. Fifthly, the Government and public bodies such as the Armed Forces, hospitals, and nationalised industries should purchase textiles from British manufacturers from beginning to end. Finally, there should be a Government campaign to urge the British people to buy British textiles.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope to call two more speakers in the 10 remaining minutes. Mr. Cryer.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The seriousness of this subject is indicated by the pressure that there has been on Members to curtail their speeches so as


to allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate. Although we are pleased that the Government have given time for this debate, many of us will have been disappointed by the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State presented his case.
Import surveillance means another exercise in gathering statistics. The danger in which the West Riding wool textile industry finds itself is well and graphically illustrated by yesterday's headline in a Bradford newspaper. It reads:
 Government gets grim warning. Textile trade gives ' slash imports ' SOS.
But import licences will be freely available on demand. The Government have refused representations to cut imports by the 20 per cent. that is demanded. The Worsted Spinners' Federation submitted an application for action by the Department of Trade under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969 at the beginning of December last year. I understand that that application is floating around Brussels.
The West Riding spinners are facing grave difficulties in my constituency. Many mills are working short time. The notice from one firm reads:
 The management of this company is very sorry indeed to have been obliged to cut working hours…The reason for this sad state of affairs is the very large number of cheap acrylic garments which have been imported from abroad, particularly South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong…We carried on producing until the middle of January, hoping that the supplies of cheap garments and yarn would be exhausted, but this has not proved to be the case. Today we have 10 full weeks' production of acrilan yarn in stock at a value of £200,000 which is costing £600 per week to finance.
That firm took over premises which were closed down recently because of the grave situation in the textile industry. Employed at those premises were 200 people. The result is that 200 jobs have disappeared. The firm was hoping to take over the factory and to restore the 200 jobs. Because of the danger of the situation there is no confidence in the industry. The firm to which I have referred has restored only six jobs. It is simply ticking over. That is the situation that I want to emphasise.
The acrylic industry is one of the youngest of the textile industries in the West Riding. It is only 15 years' old.

There is a high level of investment. There has been continued investment through the textile aid scheme. However, the industry needs import protection to allow it to take advantage of the investment that has taken place. Mention has been made of the co-operation of the trade unions. Some people have said that they have been supine. Matters have improved since Jack Reel, one of the general secretaries, has gone to Europe. He should stay there for a long time.
The position is complicated by EEC membership. In answer to a letter that I wrote to the Department of Trade, enclosing a copy of the application of the Worsted Spinners' Federation for antidumping legislation, a reply was received from which it appears that the EEC has been investigating anti-dumping legislation as regards acrylic yarn from South Korea, Taiwan and Japan since 1973. That action will now be supplemented by another statistical exercise on the part of the Government.
Textile restraint negotiations with South Korea and Japan are
 expected to begin quite soon ".
It is clear to many hon. Members that our hands are too tied by the EEC. We must recognise our international obligations, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, the developing countries are responsible for far more of our imports than India and Pakistan. In any event, I would have suggested that our aid to developing countries would be far more reliable and healthy if it were based on a sound economy in this country.
The EEC is hanging round our neck. but I hope that the Government will act independently. I ask my hon. Friend—and I ask him urgently—to let us know the maximum period for which the import surveillance will operate before he is prepared to take action. Will it last two months, four months or six months? How long is he prepared to see surveillance continue before action is considered necessary? The industry is in such a position that four months might well see some grave situation developing in it.
In my constituency I am concerned about the Lancashire cotton textile industry because I have two mills in the area I represent that weave and spin cotton. I am also concerned about a large section


of the West Riding wool textile industry and the man-made fibre industry. I hope that the Minister can give the assurances I seek. We can develop a good, efficient, well-managed and co-operative industry, providing that it is in a fair position to compete. That means some sort of import control, and import control introduced soon.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful that I have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I seem to have had some difficulty in doing so tonight.
I too am glad that the Government have granted time for this debate. It is remarkable that so many hon. Members have been prepared to stay here on a Thursday night on a one-line Whip when they could have been at home with their families. That shows the importance that we attach to the problems of the textile industry. I agree with the hon. Member who could not remember such unanimity before on both sides of the House on any issue. That is because we all feel very deeply about the present problems of the textile industry.
Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I was born and bred in Lancashire. We do not need to buy a Lowry painting to hang in the living room: all we have to do is open the door and it is in front of us. We have lived in the cotton industry all our lives, We have seen it diminish from a huge industry employing thousands of people in Rochdale, including my mother and father, to a smaller more efficient industry.
There have been crises in the past. I remember when the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was Mayor of Rochdale and organised the compaign of the borough mayors against the problems which the industry was facing in the 1960s. But the industry is now facing its worst and most serious crisis since the 1930s. That is why all of us here today are determined to put the case to the Government and to seek some action about it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), I attended the meeting at the Empress Mill which was a watershed of this campaign. I have

never known the textile workers to come together to demand Government action. Sixty thousand people in Lancashire are now on short-time working. They just cannot understand why we continue to allow under-developed and developed nations to send their textiles to this country to dump them on our market, when they are facing short time, redundancy and unemployment.
In a letter sent to the Chairman of the British Man-Made Fibres Federation this month, the Secretary of State for Trade referred in particular to an "immediate obligation "to the developing countries to make progressive increases in their access to our own and other developed countries' markets. I do not know whether the Secretary of State believed what he said—I suspect that it was written by one of these civil servants—but if he comes to Lancashire and tells the people of Lancashire that, they will tell him where to go.
I know that the Under-Secretary has a great deal of sympathy with this matter because he represents a Lancashire textile seat. We cannot point the finger at Lancashire and say that we have a responsibility to take the goods of underdeveloped nations because we have to see that they are helped along. Of course we have. We in Lancashire have never said that we do not want to do that. Indeed, last century, Lancashire cotton textile workers chose the dole queue rather than spin and weave cotton picked by the American slave labour.
All that they and we are asking for is that this industry be given a fair deal—no money, just a fair deal to compete in the home market. I say with all the seriousness that I can muster that many hon. Members who represent Lancashire textile seats are here in this House because textile people put us here to do a job for them. It is our intention to ensure that we do that job. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they make any future decision. Whether in import controls or greater surveillance of dumping, immediate action is needed if we are to save the Lancashire textile industry.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: This has been a remarkable debate. In the


course of about four hours no fewer than 28 hon. Members have managed to speak. Undoubtedly all of them have exercised considerable restraint. In view of the tremendous constituency interest in this subject, it seemed to me right that there should be only one Front Bench intervention from the Opposition, and I have considerably curtailed the remarks I intended to make. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that this is in no way a reflection on the importance of the subject. On the contrary, it was because I was so anxious that we should have a good and wide-ranging debate that I thought it the right policy to adopt.
No one who has listened to the debate could have failed to be impressed by the depth of concern which has been expressed from both sides of the House. It is equally true that all of us understand very well that what is involved here are human as well as economic problems. That was brought out very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), with his experience of some 24 years of representing a constituency which is a major textile area. He adopted an analytical approach, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke with great passion and feeling about the problems now confronting the textile industry generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) stressed the hardship involved, particularly in an area in which very often income levels are not very high, when short-time working becomes prevalent. I went to school in Lancashire and I well understand the scars of the 1930s, which still remain in many areas, and the problems which exist.
I want to reinforce, as briefly as I can, a number of the points that have been made and to raise some major issues before the Minister replies to the debate.
It is important to make the point that this is a debate on textiles. Therefore, it is not a debate simply on cotton—important though that is—and it is not a debate simply about synthetics. It is a debate about the woollen industry also. Indeed, it has been stressed that in many ways the situation in the woollen industry is more serious than that in the cotton industry. It has also been brought out very clearly that this is a matter which

affects very many parts of the country, and not simply one side of the Pennines or the other. We need to bear that point in mind. That is also true concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I want to stress the point made very fairly by the Minister in his opening remarks about the view which was taken by the previous Conservative Government. In speaking in an Adjournment debate on 27th November the Minister pointed out that in January 1972 the Lancashire industry had protection against lower priced cotton textiles by tariffs and by quantitative restrictions. He pointed out that both those forms of protection were continued even though it had been recommended that we should get rid of quotas. We may reasonably claim that the previous Conservative administration accepted the industry's case for protection in relation to a number of products. I shall not burden the House again with the details, which the hon. Gentleman very fairly spelled out.
I turn to the question of the multi-fibre market and international trade in textiles because this has occupied a very important and central part of our debate. The fact is that we are debating an industry in which the long-term trend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster pointed out, has been a very rapid decline over the years. Employment in the cotton textile industry has dropped from about 250,000 to about 80,000, and there has been a very rapid corresponding decrease in the wool industry. Nevertheless, about 930,000 people are still employed, but of those it is estimated that some 150,000 are on short-time. That obviously raises very difficult questions indeed.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the speech made by the Leader of the House in Blackpool last week, in which he said that the Government intend to maintain quotas on cotton goods and so on. That has aroused considerable antagonism in the industry, because the expression "maintain" can be used in two quite different senses. Many people take it to mean "maintain" in the sense of absolute levels, whereas it can be taken to mean "maintain" in the sense that some form of restriction will remain. This has been unfortunate and has been heavily criticised outside the House and in this debate.
We are essentially faced with a threefold problem. First, there is the problem of world depression, particularly in this industry. We are also getting some of the side effects of the oil crisis. A number of hon. Members have pointed out that the United States, with a depressed market of its own, has cheaper feed stocks than we have, at about 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom price. That obviously puts United States manufacturers in a very strong competitive position.
The second point which must be taken into account is the depression in the United Kingdom market. Other points have been mentioned in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), for example, supported by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), mentioned the effect of the capital transfer tax on small firms in the woollen industry. This is obviously a very serious matter.
The main point of the debate, however, has been on the question of imports. Import controls, whether by tariff or quota, raise very important points of principle. There are two aspects which need to be considered together. I hope that the House will bear with me if I mention them both, because it is extremely important in the context of the textile industry that they should be considered jointly.
Considerable pressure is undoubtedly building up for general import controls both at academic level—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden)—where the so-called Cambridge new school has been advocating it, and in pressure groups who are seeking to offset the effect of excessive wage claims on prices, demand and employment. The motor industry is a case in point. It would be a serious mistake to adopt a policy which would effectively bail out those who have broken the social contract with the inevitable result that even higher wage claims and prices would lead to even stiffer demands for import restrictions. That would have a serious effect on our overall economic and competitive position.
The danger would be that we should start a trade war with a dangerous outburst of protectionism and that would have an extremely serious effect on our exports to Japan, for example. A lot of mention is made of Japanese imports to

Britain, but we should stress the importance of our exports of woollen goods to Japan. I must point out that these remarks do not apply only to the textile industry, but to the question of import controls generally if we were to adopt a protectionist stance. The danger of retaliation in those circumstances is very great. There is the danger of inflation.
As I said, there are two aspects which must be considered together. The second is that if one accepts the general principle I have been advancing one must also recognise, as many hon. Members have tonight, that the competition must be fair and equitable. The important question is whether, to return to this particular case, the import of textile goods is fair and equitable. I think that the case against dumping is clearly very strong.
In the Adjournment debate in November the Under-Secretary said at column 590 that cheap textiles were not the same as dumped textiles. It is important to distinguish between the two. Of course, it could be that cheaper textiles are dumped, and I think that I carry the Under-Secretary with me on that. The question of dumping has been at the core of the debate this evening. The position over textiles has been recognised under the aegis of GATT and, in terms of special arrangements, as being in a unique position.
Many hon. Members have stressed the excellent labour relations which exist in the textile industry and have emphasised that labour costs have not risen all that fast. In my earlier remarks about the social contract I perhaps should have said that the general view in the industry is that wage claims have not been in excess of the rise in the cost of living, and therefore the social contract, to that extent, appears to have been observed. That is in marked contrast to the general position where prices have risen by about 20 per cent. and wages have risen by about 30 per cent. over the past year. This is because the textile market has been depressed.
Average earnings in the industry are being affected by short-time working. The industry has become a victim of the social contract. This is a feature which should be brought out—[Interruption.] Yes, it has to do with the social contract. The overall impact must be taken into account.


I am making a valid point. If our overall competitive position is eroded, this industry is badly hit.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the social contract. Will he tell the House what the alternative is?

Mr. Higgins: I am trying to stick to the point, which is relevant. I will not seek to debate the counter-inflation problem.
The next point concerns the effect which Government action has had on the cash flow of firms in the textile industry. No one will dispute that the present cash flow position in the textile industry is perilous. This has had an adverse effect on the industry.
I want to say a few words on the question of prices, and I should like the Minister to reply to these points. Hon. Members have referred to the 20p shirt and the £8 suit. It has been pointed out that these have not been a great gain either to the less developed countries or to the consumer. I was not quite clear whether hon. Members were arguing that they would have rather seen the low price of the imports reflected in the price in the shops—[Interruption.] That is a point on which the Minister may care to comment. We need to establish the pricing position of a number of these imports. This is an area in which the Government could make further investigation.
As regards the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) about Comecon, a number of hon. Members have pointed out that the imports coming from Comecon countries have had a disruptive effect. Imports of made-up suits were referred to. The Prime Minister, after returning from his recent visit to Russia, published a document showing that many of the items to be sent to Russia were textile machinery and would be supplied at a rate of interest of 7 per cent., which is substantially lower than anyone in Britain can obtain. So under the Prime Minister's arrangements the importers will have the advantage of inflation protection.
As regards the position of the Comecon countries, the points made by hon. Members are justified. How are the Government to establish whether dumping is

taking place when the country from which the goods are being exported has no market economy in the ordinary sense? We are right to be concerned about imports coming from these countries. The Comecon countries account for about 32 per cent. of our imports of suits.
Concern has been expressed about imports from Asia. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, argued that competition here was unfair. Despite what the Minister said, we must consider carefully whether the procedure to cope with dumping is implemented as rapidly as is necessary when a genuine case has been established. In this connection I wish to relate my remarks to the question of imports from Asia and EEC associate territories.
On 28th November the Secretary of State wrote to one of my hon. Friends a letter in which he discussed the various arrangements for anti-dumping legislation, and said that the only anti-dumping application made in the past year or so by the United Kingdom textile industry was that on credit yarn from the Far East. He said that that case was being handled. If there has been only one application in that period, is that fact not more likely to reflect the difficulty of going through the procedures and establishing whether dumping has taken place, rather than the extent of dumping?
The time has come to reappraise carefully the procedures on allegations of dumping. A number of Labour Members have mentioned specific proposals, but should we not take further action, in the light of the Minister's letter and the considerable complacency on the subject?
The bon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made a typical speech on the subject of membership of the EEC, albeit rather shorter than usual. We want to be absolutely clear what the position of the textile industry is. The British Textile Confederation, for example, recently made clear that it believes that continued British membership is in the interests of the country and of the textile industry.

Mr. Cryer: rose —

Mr. Higgins: I have already had to cut my speech right down. I turn to the question of the multi-fibre arrangements


and the burden-sharing arrangements. It is vital that we press ahead with them as rapidly as possible. How does the Minister see the timetable? We are in a better position to have influence in these matters if we are members of the EEC, and if it is known that we shall continue as members, than if we do not make it clear that we intend to remain members.
It is true that the Community has adopted an attitude towards imports from the less-developed countries which is perhaps not as favourable as we have shown. But I am sure that we can encourage the Community to share the burden, as it is called, of these imports from overseas.
There is no doubt that the proposals for burden-sharing and the MFA should help provide considerable relief, whether to part of the industry or to the industry as a whole. A number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, have said that the position is critical and that they have been told that it should be resolved within two to four months. Is the Minister's appraisal of the urgency of the need for action the same as that expressed by many of my hon. Friends? If not, there may be a gap between now and the implementation of the MFA. Many hon. Members have stressed that that could create a dangerous position, given the overall situation in the industry.
I hope that on this and many other subjects that I have not had time to mention the Minister can give us a forthcoming reply, because there is no doubt that the concern of the House on the subject has been very great.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Higgins: I promised to sit down at exactly a quarter to twelve, and that is what I propose to do.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Meacher: As all hon. Members who have been present will agree, this has been a remarkable debate. We have heard a large number of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House which have been deeply sincere and, indeed, passionate. It has been a sombre debate, well-informed and good-tempered, although I recognise that that is because the mood of anger and great determination has scarcely been suppressed.
I appreciate, as I am sure do all hon. Members, the central importance in the debate of the request that has been made to the Government by the BTC. That has been the whole focus of the debate, and I entirely accept that action to be taken by the Government must centre round their consideration of that application. I have listened carefully and I know that all my hon. and right hon. Friends in Government will read carefully all that has been said, but I cannot add to what I said in my opening speech.
I have taken note—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Trade who has been sitting by me throughout the debate—of the strength of feeling throughout the House, the common realisation that this is the most serious crisis the textile industry has faced since the 1930s and the common desire that action be taken which will be swift and effective. The message is entirely clear because it has been so eloquently expressed and is universal. The only slightly discordant note was when the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) unwisely brought in some connection with the social contract.
In the time remaining I will try to be as helpful as I can by replying to some of the detailed points raised. I was asked —and this is absolutely central—whether the Government intended that the textile industry should remain viable and prosperous. I say at the outset that it would be unthinkable that any other consequence should materialise. I can certainly say for the Labour Government—and I am sure it would be true of any other Government—that it would be absolutely unthinkable, and our consideration of the material that has been put before us is in that context.
Hon. Members should not underestimate the significance of what I said about the import restraint regime that has been established for textiles. It shows the determination of successive Governments to ensure that the textile industry is protected. The view has been forcefully expressed throughout the House that it is not enough. We shall take due note of that view, but a considerable framework of protection exists.
It is unthinkable that the Government should not intend the industry to be viable and prosperous because of the


enormous contributions it makes to our balance of payments position. The industry's exports are worth £1,100 million a year, so the viability and prosperity of the industry are a key part of the Government's strategy.
I want to make clear—because it did not seem to be clear to one or two speakers—that we have not refused or implicity rejected the BTC application. What I said and what I meant was that we are considering the application. The Government have not reached a decision but are considering it. It would be premature to make any assumption about the results of the comprehensive inquiry which the Government are making.
The hon. Member for Worthing mentioned dumping at some length. The basic definition of dumping is selling abroad at prices below the fair market price of the same or similar product in its country of origin. There are special arrangements for assessing dumping from the State trading countries, Comecon or others, or in cases where exported goods are not also sold in the country of origin. There is also provision for the imposition of a provisional charge of duty, where this is expedient, while a full investigation is being carried out.
Anti-dumping measures are intended for action only against dumped goods which are causing or threatening material injury. I do not for one moment deny the material injury which exists in the textile industry. Anti-dumping measures are not designed, intended or appropriate for dealing with competition from low-priced but not dumped goods. There is a technical distinction and it is one to which the Government, or any Government, are bound to hold. The Department of Trade has received only one antidumping application from the textile industry in recent months and that related to acrylic yarn from the Far East. There have been no applications in respect either of cloth or made-up goods.
I ought to refer to a letter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) dealing with a dumping application made to the EEC which illustrates some of the problems which can exist. My hon. Friend said in his letter:

 Acrylic yarn from South Korea, Taiwan and Japan is already subject to an antidumping investigation by the EEC Commission as a result of an application in 1973 by Interlane, the European manufacturers' organisation.
We can appreciate that where there is that degree of delay in the processing of applications, industry does—at least as regards its application to the EEC—feel that the situation is not being treated with the degree of urgency required.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is it the case that in view of the application to the EEC it is not possible for us to consider an application for dumping in this country at that time?

Mr. Meacher: I believe I am right in saying that that is correct. Where the issue does not relate to imports coming specifically to this country and where it applies to imports going equally to other Member States, the matter is dealt with by the Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made a powerful and moving speech. One point on which he touched was that of the regulator. The regulator mechanism has been described by him and a number of other hon. Members as a much-needed objective. I do not necessarily disagree with that as a general objective. It is also a medium-term objective. What we are rightly concerned with at this stage are short-term objectives.
Much was made of the papers sent to my Department by the Lancashire cotton industry on 14th October last year. I should like to correct one misunderstanding. What was sent was a statistical analysis designed to produce an early-warning indicator of an onset of recession, using changes in the level of spinners' stocks which it was suggested my Department might use as a reliable ground for action to restrain imports. That may be appropriate if we are at an early stage in the downturn. I hope hon. Members would agree that at this stage a regulator of this kind is not appropriate. What we are concerned about is short-term action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) made a strong appeal on behalf of the wool textile industry in which he was supported by the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and Ripon (Dr. Hampson). Let me say a


word on woollen imports from Hong Kong.
In 1974 we exported woollen fabrics and yarn valued at £148 million, while the value of our imports was only £23 million. Hong Kong was not of sufficient importance as a supplier to appear separately in the overseas trade accounts. Wool imports, although not negligible, were below 9 per cent. of sales on the domestic market. I therefore do not have immediately available the figures of imports from Hong Kong. However, the restraints that the EEC is now negotiating with Hong Kong and with other main South-East Asian suppliers will include knitwear, woven fabrics and made-ups other than cotton, in addition to spun synthetic yarns. This will include spun acrylic yarn imports, which are causing considerable concern.

Dr. Hampson: These are the import figures: Hong Kong—£86 million, EEC—£68 million, EFTA—£51 million, remainder of imports—£56 million. Hong Kong dominates the figures.
There is also concern that the MFA is being delayed by the Government, who want less strict constraints than those which the industry has already agreed with the Commission.

Mr. Meacher: As regards the last point, that is not the case.
I should like to deal with the question of surveillance import licensing and its relevance to imports from developed countries. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) raised the question of the policing of imports from Portugal. The Government have decided to extend surveillance licensing of imports to apply to all countries other than EEC members, and this includes Portugal. The products covered include virtually all yarn and fabrics manufactured from all the main fibres.
In the course of a powerful and well-informed speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) raised the question of the Portuguese cot blankets. The matter was raised with me many weeks ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale brought a delegation from John Barnes. At that time the same samples were produced in my office. I should

like to know whether the suggestions I then made were acted on. Did they pursue the matter of the alleged copying of a United Kingdom design with the Office of Fair Trading? Did they pursue with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection the question of retailers' margins under the Price Code? It is not a case of import controls or nothing. Although I do not deny the importance of this matter, there are other steps which are relevant to our problems that can be taken.
The question of woven cloth was raised by a number of hon. Members. In the course of a slightly knockabout but passionate speech, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) mentioned woven cloth from the Mediterranean Associates. Imports of woven cloth from Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Jordan are controlled. Imports from Turkey, Greece and the other Mediterranean Associates are not restricted but are subjected to surveillance import licensing. Therefore we are able to see whether these imports are beginning to build up. However, that is not the case now.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the question of the level at which import restraints were to be imposed in the case of Greece and Turkey. This is still being negotiated. I cannot yet mention the final details.
I should now like to refer to the point made about the growth rate of 6 per cent. under the MFA. The industry knows that when we considered its case last autumn, these imports of cotton yarn were increasing at a rate of hundreds of per cent.—not just 6 per cent. The level of the imports of cotton yarn in 1974 was lower than the level which it insisted last autumn would inevitably be arrived at in the United Kingdom by the end of the year. The hon. Member for Macclesfield misunderstood the position. I do not believe that the industry was unaware either of the original phasing-out intentions, which were negotiated under the previous Conservative Government, or of the provisions of the MFA which require the phasing out.
I also think that what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was false and that when he looks at the fuller position he will realise that my right hon. Friead


in no way misrepresented the position, which was well represented —
It being Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARM CERTIFICATES)

12 midnight

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variations of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1974 (S.R. &amp; 0. N.I.) 1974, No. 301), dated 29th November 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December.
I am glad to have the opportunity to open this debate on a subject which has generated a good deal of interest, and the Opposition are grateful to the Government for providing the time for our anxieties to be expressed and for the Government's intentions in this matter to be probed.
As the House will be aware, this matter all began because of the notorious Northern Ireland Order No. 301 dated 29th November 1974 which came into effect on 1st January of this year. This order increases under variation of fees the grant or taking out of a licence from £2·10 to £10 ; under 2(b), the renewal which has to be effected every three years from £1·5 to £5 ; and the variation of a firearms certificate under 2(c) from £1·5 to £5.
Hon. Members will note two facts: first, that the new level of fees is about quintuple the previous level, and, second, and of considerable importance, that the old levels of fees of £2·10, £1·5 and £1·5 respectively were themselves established as recently as 1970.
The first question that we have to ask the Government is why the fees have increased by this unacceptably steep amount. After all, the latest figures show that the 1970 pound, when these fees were last altered, today has a purchasing power of 61p, so that recompensing the Revenue authorities for the fall in purchasing power in that period would be more than adequately accomplished by doubling the grant fee from £2·10 to, say, £4, which would still leave a little extra in hand. But to ask for £10—£6

more than the fall in the value of money in the four or five years since 1970—calls for an explanation from the Minister.
It may be that the old levels were pitched too low in 1970 and did not then cover the full cost of collection, hence the quintupling of them now. In any event, the cost of collection will have risen in the intervening period. But what we need an assurance about is that these new levels are not pitched above the cost of collection. If they are, we believe that it will establish a new precedent and a dangerous new principle which will he quite unacceptable and which, in effect, will permit only those who are able to afford to pay a licence fee to be in a position to possess a firearm, regardless of their needs.
In my view, the situation appears to be approaching that today. In Northern Ireland, although in some parts one can still buy quite a good shotgun for £30 or £40 if one knows where to go, at the new level of fees the cost of licensing a gun for a lifetime's shooting will amount, with a variation or two thrown in, to double the cost of the weapon's purchase in the first place.
We recognise that Northern Ireland has its own special problems. But it appears to us that the new level of fee at £10 for the grant of a firearm licence for a shotgun is completely out of line with the rest of Great Britain, for instance, where the fee is still only £1 for the same licence.
I submit that a number of questions should be asked tonight, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer one or two of them.
First, why are the fees being quintupled, and to what purposes will the revenue be applied? Secondly, why, coupled with this steep increase in fees, have the police in Northern Ireland been instructed—as recently as 15th January—to utilise "more stringent criteria ", to quote the relevant order, when considering applications to possess guns for recreational, sporting and agricultural purposes? Why have these new stringent criteria been ordered now after six years of terrorism?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whose order it is from which he is quoting?


Who is being ordered by whom in the document to which he referred?

Mr. Farr: I am quoting from a Press release issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, dated 15th January 1975.
There is one particular point that I should like to put to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. We do not expect an answer tonight, but we should like him to consider whether some economies can be made. I think that the hon. Gentleman, being a sensible person, will recognise that the present level of fees will be beyond the reach of many ordinary people in Northern Ireland. Cannot a sensible economy be made by taking steps to see that the necessary firearm licence to possess a shotgun, a rifle, or whatever, is renewable at six-yearly periods instead of the present three-yearly period? That would be an obvious immediate economy. It would halve the cost of collection and make the steep increase of fees contained in this notorious Order No. 301 more acceptable and, consequently, reduce it.
Regardless of the consultations that the Minister may or may not have had about reducing the level of fees because he is able to extend the period for a licence from three years to six years, will he undertake to look at the special position of those engaged in agriculture who need firearms not as toys or sporting requisites, but as tools for cropping and flock protection at certain times of the year?
There is no evidence of legally held sporting firearms being used to any significant or, indeed, any degree in terrorist attacks. The House may be interested to know that in 1973 a total of 281 shotguns, legitimately held, were stolen, the major portion of them from dealers' premises. This total is little greater than the average in normal years and represents a little more than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total of shotguns in private hands.
In recent years the Northern Ireland sportsman has commanded our sympathy and our admiration for the public-spirited and responsible way in which he has conducted himself in the face of great provocation. We trust that after all the fire and brimstone that they have been

through the Secretary of State will not adopt a churlish attitude towards this restrained and law-abiding section of the population who possess firearms for recreational, agricultural and sporting purposes.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am glad despite the lateness of the hour, to have this opportunity of explaining in more detail, and giving some of the background to, the current policy on firearms in Northern Ireland. There has been a good deal of controversy about it recently and the policy may not be fully understood in all quarters. In doing so, I shall say something about the question of firearm certificate fees, out of which this debate, strictly speaking, arises.
Let me make one thing clear at the outset. Most of the crime in Northern Ireland involving firearms is committed with weapons held illegally. I do not suggest otherwise. But there can be no doubt that the number of legally held firearms in private hands is in some degree a potential threat to public safety. Of 1,403 legally held weapons stolen between 1971 and 1974, some three-quarters were stolen from people who held them for private reasons. We must therefore exercise realistic controls over legally held weapons.
There have been some extraordinary statements made in recent weeks and I am glad of the opportunity to explain to the House what the position is. Under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, the responsibility for the grant and renewal of firearm certificates rests solely with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He grants a certificate only if the applicant can show good reason for having a particular weapon. He also needs to be satisfied that the applicant is not prohibited under the Act from possessing a firearm, that he is not intemperate or of unsound mind, and that he can be permitted to possess a firearm without danger to the public safety or to the peace.
A person who is refused a certificate may appeal to the Secretary of State.
Applicants for renewal certificates have to satisfy similar tests. All certificates have to bear the applicant's photograph. There is a further provision of some importance. The holders of hand weapons


are required to have them ballistically tested and a photograph in profile taken of the barrel as a means of checking the origin of bullets discovered at the scenes of incidents. Over 7,000 firearms have been so tested since the system started in 1973.
The law in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain because the size of the problem in Northern Ireland requires a different approach. There are about 97,000 legally-held weapons in private hands in Northern Ireland. This excludes about 5,000 weapons held by members of the RUC Reserve and UDR. Excluding also about 12.000 air weapons which in Great Britain are not classed as firearms and about 3.000 firearms which have been voluntarily surrendered by their owners to the police for safe-keeping, there are some 82,000 firearms in private hands in Northern Ireland.
The decision whether or not to issue a firearm certificate rests statutorily with the chief constable who has to bear in mind the considerations I mentioned earlier. Naturally he has regard to the security situation on which he keeps the Secretary of State regularly informed, and he is, of course, aware of the decisions taken by the Secretary of State on appeals.
During 1975 some 50,000 firearm certificates—a substantial number—fall due for renewal. In general, people already holding certificates will have them renewed. But special attention will be paid by the police to applications for new certificates, particularly in urban areas. If a man wants a gun for sporting purposes, a genuine reason must be shown. A new certificate for rough shooting will normally only be granted when there is written permission from the owner of the land where the gun is to be used. New certificates for 22 rifles will generally be confined to farmers to deal with such problems as sheep worrying and things of that sort. New applications for hand weapons for personal protection will continue to be authorised only where the Chief Constable is satisfied that the applicant's life is at risk.
With regard to weapons already held for sentimental reasons, security is just as important as in the case of all other legally held weapons. The Chief Con-

stable is considering how best to achieve this by means other than drilling and plugging. But in general people will not be granted certificates to acquire weapons for sentimental reasons. This will not prevent sentimental weapons being handed down within a family.
I should like to pay a tribute to the public-spirited people who in the interests of security have handed in their weapons to the police for safe-keeping—about 3,165 in all. I hope that more people will follow their excellent example.
I said earlier that some 50,000 firearm certificates would fall due for renewal in 1975 and that in general people already holding certificates will have them renewed. Where a person has his certificate revoked it is open to him to appeal or to make a fresh application. The number of certificates falling due for renewal this year will mean a major administrative task for the police and civil service. Here we come to the point the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was interested in. Extra staff have had to be provided. The Firearms Certificates and Permits (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) increased fees for a new certificate to £10 and for renewal to £5. These increases are substantially required to cover the administrative costs which have risen steeply because of inflation and because of the greater commitment of police time in the investigation of applications which is now necessary.

Rev. Ian Paisley: How many of the 50,000 firearm certificates which have been renewed are for shotguns?

Mr. Moyle: I cannot say off-hand. I shall see if the information is available but I doubt it at present. I will see what I can do to deal with the matter.
In assessing the rates which the order imposes, hon. Members should bear in mind that certificates need to be renewed only once every three years. The continuing cost of a certificate is thus only £1·67 per annum which is not exactly a crippling sum.
I will bear in mind the idea of six-yearly renewal but the governing principle is not necessarily that of economy rather than the need for security.
The House will be aware that there have been many rumours about forthcoming legislation dealing with firearms in Northern Ireland. Copies of the proposed draft order, with an appropriate explanatory document, will first of all be made available in the House and elsewhere so that there will be opportunity for all interested parties to comment. But I thought it might be helpful if I mentioned the main provisions now. The order will seek to improve the control of gun clubs. The rifle associations have been consulted about this and I am glad to say they are happy about the proposals. I have it in mind that clubs should be required to keep registers of members which will be open to police inspection ; that they should make annual membership returns to the police ; and that they should submit for police inspection their arrangements for range safety and the security of their arms and ammunition.
The order will also raise the minimum qualifying are for a firearm certificate from 16 to 18 years, thus bringing the law into line with current practice. Further provisions will require firearms dealers to notify transactions within the trade.
Professor A. J. P. Taylor once wrote a book of essays entitled "Wars and Rumours of Wars ". Those of us currently concerned with the government of Northern Ireland might well entitle our memoirs" Policies and Rumours of Policies ", because there has recently been a spate of rumours in the Province about many aspects of policy there—not least the policy for firearms.
We have received at Stormont Castle a large number of representations, from all sections of the community, about the steps being taken to control legally-held firearms and the alleged reasons for those steps. I can remember some particularly striking examples of this. On 18th February. Professor Kennedy Lindsay was reported as having solemnly warned my right hon. Friend against
 the new policy of withdrawing a large proportion of legally held guns
which he alleged was part of a deal that had been made with the Provisional IRA. On 24th February, Assemblyman Mr. Frank Millar was reported as saying the Government's determination to withdraw legally held guns was

 a carefully planned exercise aimed at weakening still further the Protestant population ".
It is against this background of rumour and innuendo that I have sought tonight to set the records straight by spelling out the facts of the policy of firearms.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) expressed thanks to the Government for making this time available. I cannot follow what the hon. Gentleman said, because he and I separately put down Prayers asking for the annulment of this order. I did that on 12th December last, but time was not allowed for us to discuss the possibility of annulling the order. I therefore do not see any reason to give thanks where no thanks are due.
The increase in fees is a matter of deep concern to those who shoot in Northern Ireland, and I think that it would be wise to take a look at the history of this matter in rather greater depth than has been done so far.
Under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which took effect on 16th October 1969, the issued of a new certificate cost 50p, a variation of that certificate cost 12½p, and a renewal cost 37½p. At the same time, for a firearm permit the sums were 22½p, 5p and 15p. This did not last very long. The Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1970, which took effect from 1st August 1970 raised the cost of a new certificate to £2·10p, a permit to £1·5p, a variation to £1·5p, a renewal to £1·5p. and a duplicate to £1·5p. The same levels applied for a permit. I ask the House to note that this means that the previous very low level of fees lasted for less than a year. I also ask the Minister whether it was at that time that the 10s. gun licence which a person used to need to use a shotgun for wildfowling disappeared. I think that it was around about then, but I have not managed to check that.
The present order, which dates from 1st January of this year, raises the cost of a new certificate to f10, a variation to £5, a renewal to £5 and a duplicate to £5. The strange thing is that the replacement of a certificate and a renewal at the same time goes up to £10, and anyone who is unfortunate enough to need to replace the low quality booklet which


is the firearm permit will have to pay £5 for it, which is rather a high price. I have had one for less than a year, and I need a new one because I have been carrying it about all the time, as we have to do now. On top of all the other things, one has to produce two photographs which have to be certified by a police officer.
All these things have to be taken into account. Not least of the things that have to be taken into account is the fact that many poor people in Northern Ireland shoot for the pot. Shooting is relatively easy to come by. There is not all that much game, but there is quite a bit of wildfowl, rabbits, and so on, and people like to chase, kill and eat them. It is a much more healthy sport than chasing a ball, and I indulge in it myself.
Next, I turn to firearm permits. This method of permitting a person to keep a firearm in their house is a hangover from the old C-Specials. That was a police force that was used during the troubles of the 1920s. It was finally disbanded in 1926. When it was formed its members were issued only with a cap and an armband. They had to buy their own weapons. When the force was disbanded the weapons were allowed to be held by the former members under firearm permits, not certificates. It is necessary to have a firearm certificate to cover all other kinds of weapons and firearms in Northern Ireland.
Some concern has already been expressed about the reason for the vast increase in fees. Since 1969 we have seen for certificates a rate of inflation of 2,000 per cent. There has been a 400 per cent. increase since 1970. They would seem to be rather ridiculous increases. I can see no justification for them, and neither can my many friends who also shoot in Northern Ireland.
We have heard about the police time that is taken up by investigating new applicants and, presumably, old applicants. That argument is the most arrant nonsense I have heard. It can be described as nothing else. The plain truth is that under the old system the investigation was done by a local police sergeant and his men. It is plainly true that it is still done by the local police sergeant and his men in many country areas and in some towns. I understand that under

the old system one person was kept continually at the job at county inspector level. That person is no longer employed. Sometimes he was a police constable but, generally speaking, I understand that he was a civil servant.
The whole system has now been centralised. We are told that the amount of work is such that extra staff have to be engaged. But can the Minister tell us what staff is normally engaged? Is it more than eight or nine civil servants? What precise function is carried out by the superintendent who is in charge of the centralised system? What precise function does he fulfil that is not still being fulfilled by the local police sergeant or by the local inspector? Is it not also a fact that on its way from the local policeman the investigation passes through divisional headquarters? Where is the justification for saying that extra time and extra staff is needed?
Northern Ireland is a small place. The community is well known to the police. In nine cases out of 10 the police can tell, without carrying out an investigation. whether a person is capable of handling a firearm safely and will not be a danger to himself or to the general public. It may well be that the cost of permits and certificates was subsidised in the past, but can the Minister tell me how the amount of the subsidy was determined? To my knowledge investigations have very often been carried out by the police as part of normal police duty. Certainly there is not a specialised body of detectives trotting round the country making detailed inquiries into the characters of the people concerned. The work is simply done locally as has always been the position. There is no greater amount of police time required in the majority of cases to arrive at a conclusion.
Another red herring that has been dragged across our path is the security situation. It appears that many people, and especially those in positions of political power in Northern Ireland, have a bee in their bonnets about legal guns. If the responsibility is not that of the political figures in Northern Ireland, is it the Army's? Let us remember the Army's record in protecting its firearms. Between 1969 and 1974 it lost 259 weapons. They represented a fire-power hundreds of times in excess of the weapons lost by civilians in view of the


lethality of the weapons the Army contrived to lose. In roughly the same period the police lost 75 hand guns, one of which was later identified as having been used in a murder and 10 others in acts of terror.
The civilian losses of guns from 1971 to 1974 were 1,403. But since legally held weapons include weapons held by the security forces and in view of the Minister's remark that three-quarters of the weapons stolen were held for private reasons, do those 1,403 losses include weapons lost by the Army and the police?

Mr. John Carson: Can my hon. Friend discover from the Minister whether some of these 1,403 missing guns were not stolen, especially in Republican areas? Whenever licences come up for renewal, the police find that many guns arc missing from those districts and that the licence holders cannot account for them.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that had not come to my attention. I hope that the Minister has noted that point.
Between 1971 and 1974 there were 14,392 shooting incidents involving the security forces. On only 16 occasions were stolen legally held weapons identified as having been used against the security forces. That is such a small number that it is not worth thinking about.
There are irksome restrictions on the holders of legal firearms. I am the owner of a 22 rifle. The last time that my firearms certificate was renewed, I was told that I could use the rifle only on my own land. That is ridiculous. The Minister is no doubt aware, as all shooting men are, that if farmers have to use their rifles for the protection of their flocks, they like to be able to use them outside the boundaries of their own farms.
The police have been, to say the least, extremely careful and wise about the granting of firearms certificates. The clearest proof is that, in the last five years, legally held weapons have been used only in eight serious cases, which are listed in the appendix to the letter that the Minister sent me on 7th March. Do those eight cases include weapons held by the security forces, part time and full time? We are aware of the problems

even in those circumstances in the use of weapons. When there are 101,000 legally held weapons in Northern Ireland, a total of only eight serious cases in five years is the clearest proof of the wisdom of the police.
A licence to drive a vehicle is granted without any serious investigation of the mental or physical health of the applicant. A criminal or, a mentally unstable or reckless person can get one. Considering the numbers of accidents, deaths or serious injuries caused by each, there is no doubt which is the more dangerous weapon since, without investigation, it can be in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable or reckless—a vehicle or a firearm. About the only thing which will disqualify one for both is drunkenness.
Furthermore, police powers are much greater in Northern Ireland than they are in Great Britain. For instance, a firearm certificate in Northern Ireland can be revoked during its life. I understand that it cannot be revoked in Britain unless a criminal act has been committed. In Britain an applicant has a mandatory right to a firearm certificate, but not in Northern Ireland, where the police can, if they wish, refuse it.
The police in Northern Ireland are quite confident of their judgment, and the record proves that their judgment is to be relied upon. The Minister should leave the matter in their hands, without any political pressure being applied. The Minister and his colleagues in Northern Ireland should forget the political catch cries that are constantly being aimed at those who hold legal weapons, and they should consider the quarters from which those cries come with great care, and the records of many of those who make them.
The Minister and his colleagues should remember the needs of the sportsmen of Northern Ireland, who form a most responsible body who have not been out shooting at their neighbours. The Minister should remember the needs of those who indulge in target shooting with rifles and, in clay pigeon shooting, those who need several shotguns. Above all, he should remember the needs of the farming community.
It is only because a 22 rifle is the largest calibre weapon for which a certificate is normally granted in


Northern. Ireland that so many of them are in the country. People who have had to shoot marauding dogs or to fire at foxes realise that a 22 rifle is not really the best weapon for the job. Farmers in Northern Ireland would prefer something with rather more punch and a flatter trajectory.
In the past the situation has been well and wisely handled. The present legislation seems, in the minds of most sportsmen in Northern Ireland, to be aimed straight at the legal sportsmen and seems designed to reduce very drastically the number of legally held firearms in Northern Ireland. The amounts of money involved are quite unnecessary. We have heard only excuses for the increase in fees. The Minister and his colleagues should look at this matter again very closely, and try to find some economies in the whole matter. They should bring back the fees to a more reasonable and realistic level.

12.38 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). First, the representatives at the Assembly are not irresponsible, as the Minister would try to make out tonight from his quotations. I challenge the Minister to deny that a certain directive, which hon. Members have seen, was sent out from the Chief Constable's office to all police stations at the beginning of this year in which there was a clear indication that a new directive was being given in regard to firearms. In a reply to a Question which I tabled, it was admitted that many firearm certificates had been cancelled.
It is also true that when a deputation of Assembly men met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the hon. Gentleman's colleague, his fellow-Minister of State, when we were discussing this matter the Minister of State interjected and said that it was the Prime Minister's view that there were far too many licensed guns in Northern Ireland and that it was the Prime Minister's policy that the number was to be reduced. Therefore, we can only assume that when the Minister of State, in the presence of the Secretary of State, makes such a statement, it is a political decision.
It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman tonight to say that these are merely rumours. Are the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman's fellow-Minister of State, when they talk to us, speaking the truth or speaking only of rumours? That is what we want to know now. Let us get away from the play acting and down to the reality of the situation. We were told this in a deputation at Stormont Castle. I can only go by what was said by the hon. Gentleman's colleague. If I am told that the Prime Minister's policy is to reduce the number of licensed guns in Northern Ireland, I take that to be Government policy, and I take it that the directive put out by the Chief Constable was in line with that policy.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government will not cut down the number of licensed arms, that the same regulations will apply as before. The community concerned will be pleased to hear that, but that was not the story which we heard when we investigated the matter. The Chief Constable told my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. North (Mr. Carson) and me that he had never been consulted on the subject or told that there was to be new legislation on guns in Northern Ireland. He told us that the only intimation he had of that fact was from an Answer to a Question asked in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. We find it very strange that the Chief Constable, the man who uses his discretion in the granting of certificates, should tell us that he knows nothing about the change, that we know as much about it as he does, and that he had not been consulted.
Let there be no misunderstanding of our attitude on this issue. We believe that in the present circumstances there should be a strict law on the granting of new gun licences. People who have not held a licence before should be strictly vetted. But those who have held gun licences, often for as long as 30 years, who have nothing against them and who the police recommend should continue to hold a licence should not have their licences cancelled. Yet in instance after instance those licences have been cancelled.

Mr. Moyle: I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood the situation completely. If the police agree that someone shall have his certificate renewed there


is no way in which that decision can be reviewed by anyone else. An appeal takes place only where someone is refused a certificate renewal by the police. That person then has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

Rev Ian Paisley: I must correct the Minister because he evidently does not understand the situation in Northern Ireland. In many cases the local police have recommended that these certificates should not be cancelled. When they have gone to the central authority that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry at the headquarters in Knock Road the recommendation of the local police has been rejected and the discretion of the Chief Constable exercised to cancel that certificate. The man in charge is actually Mr. Williamson, who is Deputy Chief Constable. He knows nothing about the person whose certificate is being cancelled. The only people who know the applicants are the men on the ground, the local chief superintendents. They have recommended that the certificates should be renewed ; yet the certificates are cancelled. Those are the incontrovertible facts. They have been confirmed to me by my local commander. It is wrong for the Minister to say, so to speak, that these are
 wars and rumours of wars ".
The Assistant Chief Constable who is responsible for this matter is a high ranking officer and is of great integrity. He informed my hon. Friend, when we visited headquarters and when he was called into consultation by the Chief Constable, that he had to employ extra staff because there would be a reduction in the number of people who held gun licences. We have been told that only in exceptional circumstances would the Minister overrule what was done by the Chief Constable.
How many appeals have been upheld? The man in the street believes that the appeals system is a farce. All appeals are turned down. Nobody seems to win on appeal.
There is a serious situation in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live with it, who know what is happening there, and who have been in the front line know that there is a serious situation. The Minister of State has confirmed again tonight, and the Secretary of State has con-

firmed over and over again, that licensed guns are not the problem. The ordinary licensed gun holder who has held a weapon for years and has never had any difficulty with the police or any other authority is asking "Why am I being hounded when those who are committing atrocities and those who hold unlicensed weapons are not pursued by the police? Why do not the police spend their time trying to get those with unlicensed arms?" These people are law-abiding. They have not been in collision with the authorities.
It is well known in the Province that the elected representatives of the United Ulster Unionist coalition visited the local commanders and discussed this matter with them. It afterwards transpired that the local commanders were unanimous in the view that those who at present hold licences have always co-operated with the police.
Why should someone who has held a weapon for 20, 25 or 30 years now be told that he cannot hold a weapon any longer? Some of these people are farmers. Even they have been told that they cannot any longer hold a weapon that they have held for many years.
I can well understand the attitude of the two Assembly men who have been mentioned. For years the Provisional IRA has conducted a propaganda campaign to the effect that there are too many licensed guns in the Province. The IRA propagandists have proclaimed that they must have arms, otherwise the Roman Catholic population would be a prey to the licensed gun holders. That is its propaganda.
The SDLP has called continually for the taking away of all licences. Its policy is that there should be no licensed guns in Northern Ireland. Now that we have a truce or a cease-fire with the IRA, is it the Government's policy that all licensed gun holders should lose their licences? I wish that the Minister would more sympathetically consider the facts and realities of the situation. It is a matter of great seriousness to the people concerned, for they are law-abiding citizens.
The Minister mentioned the guns that the police hold. The reserve constables' weapons are on firearms certificates. These men have been granted the use of a firearm for their own protection when they are not on duty. Their guns


are also on certificates, and must be taken into the total number of weapons considered tonight.
How many airguns are there in a comparable rural area in England? I am told that on this side of the water there are far more airguns per head of the population than there are in Northern Ireland. We must remember that everyone with an airgun in Northern Ireland must have a firearms certificate.
I agree with one point that the Minister mentioned. I should be happy if the age limit were raised to 18. There would be no objection to that from the representatives of Northern Ireland. We are happy that the hon. Gentleman has had consultations with rifle clubs. We also agree with him that the clubs should be under strict supervision. Nobody objects to that.
There is no objection from the representatives of Northern Ireland to having the matter dealt with properly. What we object to is that it seems that the public representatives were told a different story at Stormont Castle from that which had been told to us by the police on the ground. Then when we asked the Chief Constable where the real direction came from we could not get a satisfactory answer. We could only conclude that it was the Prime Minister's policy, the policy of the present administration.
I come to the raising of the fees. In all fairness to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, it is ridiculous that the licence fee should be increased by such a vast amount. I shall not enter into an argument about the social contract at this hour, but where does this tie in with the social contract? There is no threshold agreement here. Licence fees that were 50p a few years ago are now to be raised to £10. That is unfair, because it means that shooting fraternity will be limited to people with means. That is wrong. There should not be a fee that brings a class distinction into the shooting fraternity. Fees should be reasonable. I agree that one method might be for the £10 to cover a longer period, but the people of Northern Ireland resent this vast jump in the fee.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There should be much instruction tonight for the Minister in what has been said,

and I hope that the conclusions will be drawn in areas much wider than the ones to which the immediate debate refers.
The Minister spoke of wars and rumours of wars, and, indeed, in Northern Ireland it is perfectly true that the air is full of rumour, some of it totally unfounded, some of it well-founded and most of it with very little, but some, foundation. It is not surprising that a population which has lived under the conditions which have been experienced in Northern Ireland in these last six years should be the prey to rumour. This prevalence of rumour is no advantage to the maintenance of law and order and is no advantage to that relationship which ought to subsist between the Government and the people. The Minister can learn from this debate how the Government can help in minimising or avoiding rumour.
The statutory Prayer against the order was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in December. If the Government in their management of business had found the time when it ought properly to have been found during the currency of the 40 days for the debate to have taken place three months ago, the Minister would have had his opportunity—which he expressed himself so delighted to find within his hands tonight—three months ago to forestall many of the rumours and misunderstandings and to scotch at a much earlier stage those which have arisen.
I am glad that the Deputy Chief Whip is also on the Front Bench. I know that he is very alive to these matters, and helpful. I put a more general proposition to the Minister and through him to the Secretary of State that the sooner matters relating to Northern Ireland can be debated in the much more dispassionate atmosphere of this House, and with the authority of the Minister at the Dispatch Box to deal instantly with points that are raised, the less rumour there will be, the more good will there will be towards the Government and the easier both he and we shall find it to discharge our functions.
In his opening speech—and I hope he will seek the permission of the House to speak again—the Minister made a number of statements which were helpful and clarifying, but I hope that before the end


of the one-and-a-half hours he will be able to go further. If he does so he will lay to rest and place upon a factual basis so much of what has hitherto been, and still is, a matter of conjecture and exaggerated alarm.
First, I ask the Minister to refer to what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of as an order—the document that has been so many times quoted in the public Press in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please explain exactly what is the status of that document, from whence it emanates, by whose authority it is backed and how far, if at all, it originates from any instructions given by Her Majesty's Government through the Secretary of State? I hope that he will clear that up once for all.
Secondly, the Minister can help with some simple statistics. If he cannot give them tonight—and it will be understandable if he cannot—there will be no difficulty in arranging for a Written Question, which would ensure that they were available to the public in Northern Ireland before Easter.
As has been said, at one stage the impression was given that almost as a matter of course firearms licences were not to be renewed when they fell for renewal and that quite drastic reductions in the numbers held were deliberately and ruthlessly being carried out. The Minister can deal with this perfectly simply by giving a series of statistics. He can state first of all and these figures should be available, or easily obtainable—the number of applications for renewal which have been accepted and those which have been refused. In each of these cases it would be helpful if there were comparable figures for previous years for purposes of comparison. That may not be entirely practicable. I throw it out as a suggestion.
The Minister can next tell us what are the facts as to the applications for new licences accepted and refused. Third, will the Minister give figures, for the appropriate period, for the number of appeals against refusal and the number of those appeals which have been allowed or turned down by the Secretary of State? There are three, and only three, simple statistics—renewals, new applications and appeals. I have not the slightest doubt that they will bear out what he has said,

and there is nothing like the facts for bearing out a general assertion.
These are the facts which will lay to rest once and for all this tiresome matter which has caused much more anxiety than is generally realised during the past three months and given the Government and the police much more trouble than necessary. Let the Minister give those figures, or, if he cannot give them now, let him undertake, and he is punctilious in fulfilling these undertakings, to supply them so that they can be published before Easter.
Finally, let us all learn the lesson to be gained from this experience, namely, that the Government should contrive to give time for the discussion of Northern Ireland problems at the earliest, and not at the latest, moment. That will save time, misunderstanding and trouble all round.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am sure that the Minister of State will take to heart the closing words in particular of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The whole House would wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for tabling their Prayer and for their persistence in obtaining this debate, which has been extremely helpful in that it has given the Government the opportunity of dealing with rumours which have arisen, as rumours so easily do in Northern Ireland, on the question of the possession and use of firearms.
We on the Conservative benches certainly favour a tight control on the issue and renewal of certificates and proper provision for the safe keeping of firearms. We are glad that the issue of certificates is now centralised at the headquarters of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This has been the case since last summer. It is worth remarking that the Chief Constable of the RUC has discretion in the refusal of licences, something which, I think, is not possessed by chief officers in Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to whom we listened with particular respect after his courageous statement about thugs and terrorists whom he described as neither Protestant nor Loyalist, referred to certain circulars,


which are not the subject of this debate, as indicating a desire on the part of the Government considerably to reduce the number of firearms in circulation in Northern Ireland. It does not require a very suspicious person to imagine that it is perhaps in the mind of Ministers that one way of reducing the number is by making the possession and use of firearms more expensive.
It is not always realised on this side of the water that—as I discovered in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Down, South before he became its Member of Parliament—sportsmen in Northern Ireland may be ordinary working-class people who may even be employed in the Belfast shipyards. It is not a rich man's sport with which we are concerned.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that when we consider measures to defeat terrorism, licensed weapons are not at issue—it is the unlicensed weapons that cause concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), when he was Secretary of State, said, on 8th February 1973:
 Illegally held firearms are the main problem. Shot-guns in rural areas and weapons for personal protection for members of the security forces and others in particular positions are necessary•• There is no evidence that licensed weapons have been used in these acts of terrorism."—[Official Report, 8th February, 1973 ; Vol. 850, c. 631.]
I do not think that the position has changed substantially since then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough spoke of crop and flock protection. The hon. Member for Londonderry made the point that a farmer needs his weapon to protect his flocks beyond his own narrow boundaries.
While I was looking up what the former Secretary of State had to say about this matter, my mind went back to September 1972 when I was on the border between County Fermanagh and the Irish Republic. I have no compunction in referring to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone since both the present and the previous Republican Members returned from that constituency are as persistent parliamentary truants as the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I hope that the good Nationalist as well as the good Unionist

people who have been so effectively disenfranchised since the unseating of the right hon. Harry West will draw their own conclusions.
From 1972 the names of Darling, Bullock and Crichton, who were the subject of either murder or murderous attacks, were vividly in my mind. I spoke to the families affected, and then switched on the radio only to hear that some members of the Labour Party, who are not present, and others belonging to the SDLP, who are not present, had demanded that the shotguns in the possession of such farmers should be called in since they were a danger to the peace of Northern Ireland. This is a regular Republican red herring, as is the question of the rifle and gun clubs.
The impression has been given on this side of the water that the rifle clubs in Northern Ireland are some sort of John Birch society. I understand that the total membership of these clubs has decreased of late and now totals about 3,000. However, in the main they consist of airgun, Territorial Army, Cadet Force, Royal Ulster Constabulary and Boys' Brigade clubs. All the rifle clubs, even those which do not possess weapons, are registered. This is not the case on our side of the water.
The Northern Ireland regulations governing the opening of rifle clubs, the obtaining of premises and the commencement of shooting are much stricter than those in England. In accordance with the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Act 1969, gun and rifle clubs must obtain a declaration of approval, which must be renewed annually. Moreover, club firearms must be held centrally.
These facts are obviously well known to hon. Members from Northern Ireland but perhaps not so well known to hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain. I mention them just to suggest that we are not really likely to strike a great blow for law and order if we try to strike at rifle and gun clubs in any way.
We get the whole situation a little out of proportion if we simply make comparisons with Great Britain. For example, I understand that the total number of licensed firearms in Northern Ireland in February was 102,190. Of that number, 99,019 were in circulation, 3,100


being held by the police for safe keeping. But that number also included 12,128 air weapons which, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out, are not licensed in Great Britain but are licensed in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the weapons of reserve policemen which are included in the total figure. So I do not think that there is an enormous excess of licensed arms in the Province which could be a danger to the public peace. In any event, the Minister of State will be replying to this as to other questions raised in the debate.
This is a matter about which people in Northern Ireland are, very understandably, sensitive. It is not surprising that rumours have been spreading about ministerial intentions. Therefore, it is well for this House and for the people of Northern Ireland that this debate has been held tonight.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Moyle: With the permission of the House, I shall do my best to reply to the matters which have been raised in the course of a very interesting debate by hon. Members who obviously have sincere and deep feelings about the situation which they face and about representations which they have received from their constituents. I think that one result of this evening's debate will be a much clearer appreciation of the general situation, and the situation which I described in my opening remarks is the policy which will be followed in Northern Ireland for the issue of licences for shotguns.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) intervened in my opening speech to ask how many of the certificates likely to be renewed in this coming year—the 50,000 which I mentioned—were likely to be shotguns. I am afraid that the precise figure is not available in anticipation of renewals being made. But if the proportion of shotguns to other guns in the general holding of guns in Northern Ireland bears the same relationship to the 50,000, about two-thirds of the 50,000 renewals will he shotguns. But that is only an estimate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a number of very interesting topics and asked for

specific information on a number of them. As he suspected at the time, I am afraid that I have not the information with me. But I shall collect the relevant information and write to the right hon. Gentleman before Easter.
As for the problems of the House in debating Irish business, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we have formed an Irish Standing Committee, and we hope that in future that will be used for the rapid prosecution and debate of Northern Ireland business in this House. I strongly advise right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to take advantage of that now. On our side of the House, we are eager to do so.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister will be aware that we have requested an early sitting of the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly the aftermath of the cease-fire, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Moyle: If that course of action is followed in future, I trust that the complaint made by the right hon. Member for Down, South will not have to be made again. I hope that we shall have debates on Northern Ireland affairs more closely related to the events with which they are supposed to deal.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for some details about the force order of 15th January. It was issued by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and was addressed to the members of the RUC. It did not result from any instruction outside the RUC.
But the fact is that, as I said in my opening speech, the Chief Constable of the RUC meets the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from time to time, and they discuss the security situation. For all I know, the Chief Constable of the RUC might adjust his thinking as a result of such meetings. However, he was responsible for issuing the force instruction and it was addressed to all members of the RUC. It was not addressed in any way to the public in general.
There are many relationships in the United Kingdom where responsibilities are legally placed on certain people, but they have political masters with whom they sometimes discuss their problems.


That is the situation. It is no more precise than that.
A police constable is responsible for the exercise of his functions not to a superior officer but to the law which covers the situation with which he is dealing. In that respect, each constable has to take on his own shoulders the responsibility for doing what he has to do. That indicates to some extent the responsibilities in this sphere.
I admit that local police are still doing a great deal of the control work, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said. The point that we are trying to make is that they will have to do more in this coming year with 50,000 renewals to be investigated.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in 1972 the security situation was even more desperate than it is now and that at that time the police managed to do their work?

Mr. Moyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that because we did certain things to meet the security situation in 1972, we should never advance beyond that point. If so, we shall not get very far with the security situation. We shall continually be amending the techniques of approaches to the security situation, and, as time goes by, we hope to have better success in defeating the problem.
The hon. Gentleman used a phrase which I hope he will reconsider, for he indicated that very few legally held guns were used in offences in Northern Ireland. During the period of the emergency, eight guns were used in the commission of murders. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want the relatives of those who were killed, whether soldiers or civilians, to go away with the thought that he considers that number of guns not worth considering. I am sure that from their point of view it was one of the most important events in their lives—that one of their nearest and dearest was killed by one of those eight guns. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will want to reconsider the phrase that he used.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the 1,403 legally held weapons which have been stolen included weapons stolen from the Army, the RUC and the Ulster

Defence Regiment. The answer to that question is "Yes ".
People are not necessarily regarded as socially or criminally inadequate as a result of having the certificate refused. It is a matter of general concern to the Government that a close watch should be kept on the number of legally held guns. I am prepared to concede that it is illegally held guns which are the major problem in Northern Ireland, but the Government must keep a close watch on the question of legally held guns because a number of them have been stolen. That is a reason for the extensive nature of the controls exercised over firearms in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Farr: In order to take some of the friction out of the issue, will the hon. Gentleman consider establishing in Northern Ireland a standing consultative committee consisting of those who use firearms for recreational purposes, the police and representatives of the Government so that before legislation was introduced it could be discussed in such a committee and the objections ironed out, thereby probably making the whole process considerably easier?

Mr. Moyle: That idea has been put to me in Northern Ireland. I cannot hold out hope that the machinery which the hon. Gentleman suggests will be set up in the form he suggests. The matter is under consideration, but there is no obstacle to those interested in a particular activity relating to the legal use of arms seeing my right hon. Friend, myself or any of my ministerial colleagues to discuss the matter. This course has been followed in the control of gun clubs, which is of particular interest to rifle associations in Northern Ireland.
The proposals which we shall put in our draft order on firearms in the near future have been formulated following discussions and consultations with the rifle associations. The order will be laid before the House in draft form so that there can be discussion and consultation on its contents. Members of the public will be able to make representations to the Secretary of State direct or through their elected representatives in Northern Ireland or in this House. There will therefore be a considerable opportunity for discussion before legislation is proceeded with.
The effective control of arms in Northern Ireland is the fact that a good reason or need must be established, but broadly within those terms firearm certificates will be renewed. I do not have any statistics on the appeals which have been upheld, but they will be supplied to the right hon. Member for Down, South in the next few days.
We are making a special attempt to be sympathetic to farmers. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that farmers used guns as tools, and it will probably be conceded that farmers have a good reason for acquiring and holding shotguns and other firearms to deal with pests and to protect their farms. We shall be as sympathetic as possible to them.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North was less than fair to the security forces when he said that people in his part of the country—perhaps he was just passing on a comment made to him—were asking why the security forces did not collect illegally held guns. Of course they did. I have some statistics in which the hon. Gentleman might be interested.
In the recent emergency, about 5,000 guns have been picked up by the security forces as a result of searches of places where illegally held guns were likely to be found. For example, in each of the last three years about 70,000 rounds of ammunition have been taken from the Irish Republican Army by the security forces, together with numbers of shotguns, rifles, pistols, machine guns and even rocket launchers and mortars. There is a continual drive to make sure that illegally held weapons are kept to the absolute minimum.
I accept, and I said in opening, that the number of legally held guns in Northern Ireland could be reduced in total, if a comparison were made with Great Britain, by the number of air weapons, because I was prepared to concede that they are not controlled here but are in Northern Ireland. For that reason I used a working figure of legally held weapons of about 80,000 and not that of 102,000, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) used. Also deducted from the total are about 3,000 guns which have been given to the police for safe keeping.

Mr. Carson: Could the Minister say how the police will implement the control of gun licences in places where law and order has not existed for six years?

Mr. Moyle: Where law and order is not rigorously enforced is where the Army have been carrying out searches for weapons for which I have given figures. That is the way the control of weapons is exercised in some areas of the Province.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the relationship of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the home police authorities with the Home Secretary is exactly the same. The great difference is that in Great Britain, if a chief constable does not grant a licence for a firearm, there is a right of appeal to the courts, whereas in Northern Ireland it lies instead to the Secretary of State. The reason is that in Northern Ireland we feel we have to cope with a rapidly changing situation, a consideration which does not apply in Great Britain where the more leisurely procedures of the courts and their more careful sifting is a better way to go about things.
I hope that I have answered the questions raised duing this debate and that hon. Members, if they do not agree, do understand the policy for control of the issue and renewal of firearms certificates in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Minister understand that it is the intention of the Home Secretary to bring fees in Great Britain into line with those in Northern Ireland, because it is one United Kingdom?

Mr. Moyle: It is one United Kingdom, but the question is a matter for the Home Secretary. In general, the hon. Member must bear in mind that we have a different situation and different administrative burdens in Northern Ireland compared with the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variations of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1974 (S.R. &amp; O (N.I.) 1974, No. 301), dated 29th November 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

That the Royal Mint Trading Fund Order 1975. a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

HARRIER AIRCRAFT

1.29 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the "First Lord of the Admiralty" and to the staff of the House for keeping anyone up even a few minutes later at this time of the night. But the maritime Harrier seems to involve a lot of waiting and there have been incredible delays.
I admit that Governments of both parties have been equally slow and indecisive. In past years I have often attacked my own Front Bench about this, so I hope that tonight the Minister will not spend time criticising my party but will get down to brass tacks about the future of this aircraft.
Incidentally, I shall be speaking about the company which has developed the Harrier and I should say that I have no interest to declare except an abiding interest to ensure that our Service men, of all three Services, shall have the weapons and equipment which they need and deserve—and also, incidentally, the pay.
My whole message tonight is to ask the Government to go ahead immediately with the development of the maritime version of the Harrier or, if not, to say why not. The Harrier is a spectacularly successful British aircraft. When I first saw the prototype fly at Farnborough, I thought "This is God's gift to naval aviation ". That was as long ago as 1963, and now, 12 years later, I believe that there are distinct and strong arguments

for going ahead with a maritime version of the aircraft.
Those reasons fall under four main heads. First and foremost, the Navy needs the aircraft. Any naval task force must have air cover and air support. Most of all, it must have air reconnaissance from shipborne aircraft. Without this the Navy becomes no more than a coast defence force. This was a most bitterly learned lesson in the Second World War, and I saw a lot of it myself. It is not that the Royal Air Force will not, but that it obviously cannot, provide adequate air cover from shore bases. I do not think I need enlarge on that basic fact of life.
The next point, and here I am sure that the Minister will agree with me, is that the prevention of war is the prime task of our forces nowadays. The White Paper speaks a lot about the Soviet Navy's rapid developments in ship-to-ship missiles. Naval intelligence—I was in it at the time—knew that this development was in progress 15 or 20 years ago. But a conscious decision was taken at that time not to spend money on such developments, not to follow them along such an expensive path, for the good reason that we had aircraft carriers. Successive Labour Governments have reduced our aircraft carrier force to only the "Ark Royal ", and now she is to be phased out.
The Navy must have some replacement weapons system, and the essential point is that missiles can only start or can only continue a war, whereas manned aircraft can be sent out to see what is happening, to report back and to stop minor incidents from escalating into major incidents as, for instance, President Kennedy's aircraft did at the time of Cuba in 1962. They can be used for the prevention of war rather than the prosecution of it.
The third point is that the Harrier works at sea. There have been successful landings at sea and in harbour in all sorts of weather. These have taken place on 18 different ships of many different navies. I have seen the aircraft myself on board the USS "Guam" and we have read in the Press about the notably successful interception of a Russian long-range bomber in the Atlantic by one of the United States Marine Corps Harriers operating from a ship.
Recently I have seen the prototype of the maritime version at Hawker Siddeley, Dunsfold. The V/STOL capability enables the Navy to use much smaller and less sophisticated ships. This ought to appeal to whoever is Minister for the Navy—there is no need for the giant attack carriers of yesteryear with their catapult systems and so on.
The V/STOL capability allows flexibility in the aircraft. There are about 20 Royal Navy ships on which such an aircraft could land in emergency, and certainly the aircraft would be extremely valuable in the context of oil rig protection, which I know the Minister takes seriously.
I ask the Minister to come clean, to admit that the naval staff approve of the Harrier and want to have it. I ask him to admit that the absence of a decision up to this moment—I hope we shall get one within the next quarter of an hour—is not for military or technical reasons but for financial ones.
The second heading is the export potential of the aircraft. The maritime version is recognised as the prime export model of the Harrier for the next decade. It is suitable for countries which need its wider capability irrespective of whether they wish to fly it from ships or from shores. The original development order in 1965 led, I believe, to an export of nearly 120 aircraft. I believe that the exact number was 118. That was in addition to the 100-plus that were supplied to the Royal Air Force. Exports already represent earnings for Britain of over £250 million.
Hawker Siddeley tells me that a development contract for the Royal Navy version, plus, for example, an order of only 24 aircraft for the British Service, would cost some £10 million per year for the next six years. I also understand that the market surveys which it has undertaken have shown that the export potential is estimated at 150 aircraft once the British Government place their order first to show that they have faith in the project. I have seen in the Press that Australia, India, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Japan and many NATO countries are interested and that the United States Marine Corps wants more. It might want as many as 350 aircraft. I have also seen that the Shah of Iran is ready

to place a large order, plus possibly a complete through-deck cruiser to go with them, so to speak. That is again provided that the Government order the Harrier for the Royal Navy.
I know only too well that Ministers do not by convention name countries or details of export orders in advance. No doubt that is the answer that I shall receive tonight. However, will the Minister please confirm that he is aware of the export potentialities of the aircraft and that he has taken them into account? Secondly, will be appreciate that the foreign customers I have mentioned can quite reasonably expect to see an order from the British Government first as evidence of British faith in the project? That is a reasonable stipulation for foreign countries to make.
Next, has the Minister taken the export potential into account in his deliberations? Even if he cannot say what the figure is, will he admit that it is a large one? Will he agree, merely as a theoretical example, that a return of some £300 million of exports over 12 years for a design investment of £20 million or £25 million—for any project—would be good business for our country?
Another good and valid reason is employment and job security within the United Kingdom. An order for development and production of, for example. 24 maritime Harriers, plus the most conservative estimate of export orders, could reach over the next 10 or 12 years an average of 4,000-plus jobs in the United Kingdom spread over dozens of aerospace factories all around the country. I could give the Minister a copy of a map which shows the various places in the United Kingdom where the work would be done. I shall give it to the Minister afterwards behind the Chair. If export business is as brisk as may reasonably be expected, the United Kingdom level of employment might be twice the figure I have mentioned and might reach a level of 8,000 jobs.
The Harrier is the world's first and only V/STOL fighter. It is the first British aircraft to be delivered in quantity to the United States since the First World War, when the old Sopwith Camels and other similar aircraft were sold to the United States. The aircraft is a great tribute to British design, technology and engineering


skill. It is a triumph for British designers and workmen. Do not let us leave the exploitation of this British initiative to the Americans. They will inevitably cash in on it if we do not.
Has the Minister received representations from the shop stewards about the need to continue production? They are rightly concerned about the need to continue production and the future of their jobs. If the Minister has not received such representations, will he undertake to see a delegation? One? Will he give me a specific answer to that question? I should appreciate a ringside ticket if he would be kind enough to offer me an invitation.
My fourth and last heading covers the wider implications. If Britain is to prosper we must remain in the broadest sense among the world's technological leaders, the highly industrialised nations. This means having the farsightedness—the plain guts and willpower, in fact—to grasp this sort of opportunity. As our forces grow numerically smaller it is essential to have the flexibility and the versatility. for instance, of an aircraft which will operate equally from ship or shore to carry out a multiplicity of different contingency plans. Any Minister of Defence will understand that. There is the additional specific economy of not needing huge prepared runways.
There is a wider point still which I hope is in order. I do not accept the main concept of the White Paper that the plains of Central Europe are where the threat is greatest. The flanks, the far North, the Mediterranean and the trade routes—particularly oil supplies corning around the Cape—are where there is most danger. Through all the political changes of many centuries, in peace or in war, no British Government, until the current White Paper, have ever considered it practicable to withdraw altogether from the Mediterranean.
With the Middle East now the number one powder keg, with the troubles in Cyprus and with the difficulties between Greece and Turkey, our NATO allies, throwing the alliance into disorder, I cannot believe that this is the moment from which all will suddenly be tranquil. Events in Portugal even since the White Paper went to press have altered the whole strategic balance in the Atlantic. If NATO is the linchpin of our defence,

to quote the Secretary of State, I believe that events will show that a maritime strategy will still be Briain's most effective contribution to the Alliance.
I hope I have made the point that the maritime Harrier is essential to such a maritime strategy. While recognising the political difficulty for the Government presented by their "Lunatic Left ", and fully admitting the feebleness of my own Government on the subject when they were in office, I urge the Minister to grasp this nettle firmly and to be as forthcoming as he can tonight.

1.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for this opportunity to speak to the House this morning about the Harrier. The House is well aware of the hon. and gallant Member's keen and continuing interest in the maritime version of this aircraft, and, indeed. in naval matters generally.
The Government themselves are no less interested, and it is because we are so conscious of the importance of this decision—with its implications for employment and sales, as well as defence—that we embarked upon such a thorough and detailed appraisal of the project.
Perhaps I could first deal with the wider question of the improved versions of the Harrier. It will be some time yet before a firm decision is needed on a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar, and a developed version of the Harrier is just one of a number of possible solutions which are being considered. We have been co-operating with the United States Government in joint studies of a future development of the present Harrier. which, as the House will know, is in service with the United States Marine Corps as well as the Royal Air Force. We fully recognise the technological and industrial benefit of continuing V/STOL developments, and we shall be doing all we can to ensure that the long-term interests of British industry in this area are safeguarded.
The hon. and gallant Member has pressed very strongly for a decision on the future of the maritime version of the Harrier. He has been very critical of the Government for not pressing ahead


with the project, and announcing this in the White Paper published yesterday. He was, I recall, equally critical of the previous Conservative administration for not reaching a decision on the future of this aircraft. I remember that we, as the then Opposition, shared his feelings.
I can well appreciate the frustrations of those concerned in industry with the maritime Harrier, those, like the hon. and gallant Member, who have championed its cause in the House and outside, and others. I sympathise with them. After all, the then Secretary of State for Defence said in another place nearly two years ago, in July 1973, that
 The evaluation of the results of the project definition studies has now been completed, with technically satisfactory results ".
He went on to say that he very much hoped to be able to announce the final decision within two or three months. Whilst the technical studies had been completed and the operational requirement justified, as the then Secretary of State said in 1973
 There still remains …the question of the priority to be accorded to the project in comparison with other important projects which compete for Defence budget resources".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 23rd July 1973 ; Vol. 344, c. 1509.]
The previous Conservative administration, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman fairly pointed out, failed to reach a decision when in office. After our election we announced the defence review and felt it right to consider the requirement for the maritime Harrier against the background of the major decisions on strategy and resources. We have, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, just announced our broad decisions on the review, and now we shall be moving forward with decisions on a number of more detailed matters, including the future of the maritime Harrier. I would be misleading the House if I did not say candidly that the decision over the maritime Harrier is a very difficult one, especially as defence budget funds, in the wake of the defence review, are a great deal more limited today than they were in 1973. I would like to explain to the House the various factors we have to weigh up in coming to a decision.
First of all there is the operational case. Fixed-wing air support for the Fleet is at

the moment, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman underlined, largely provided by shore-based RAF aircraft. Once" Ark Royal "is paid off at the end of the decade, fixed-wing air support for the Fleet will be wholly provided by land-based RAF and allied aircraft, and, of course, allied shipborne aircraft. Embarked V/STOL aircraft would complement these aircraft, and provide a quick-reaction capability to the naval commander on the spot.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, it would give the naval commander an additional weapon option, enabling him to carry out reconnaissance and to attack enemy ships and aircraft at considerably greater ranges than his other shipborne systems allow. This would be an added operational capability in view of the Soviet Navy's formidable long-range offensive shipborne missile armoury. It would be another dimension that hostile forces would need to take account of. As such, V/STOL aircraft would contribute to the overall deterrence function of our forces. In this context, of course, I take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point that we are all in this business to prevent war, and that the day that the balloon goes up we have all failed the real test for the effectiveness of our defence, which is the prevention of the outbreak of warfare.
The present Harrier could not undertake this task. It is a ground-attack aircraft designed for army support. The Harriers which are in service at sea with the United States Marine Corps are used in this army-support rôle. However, the project definition studies which have been undertaken have shown that the development programme required to convert the Harrier design to a maritime rôle should be entirely feasible. The modifications required concern principally the aircraft's radar and avionics.
As for the practicability of operating V/STOL aircraft at sea, there are clearly differences between flying an aircraft on and off a ship's flight-deck and flying it from a ground airfield. The limited space available and deck movement are obvious ones. Other things have to be considered, such as whether there are adequate facilities to permit operation over any length of time. Shipborne facilities have to cover maintenance and servicing of the aircraft and suitable hangarage and workshops as


well as storage space for the aircraft, fuel and weapons, and shipborne command and control facilities.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his infinite knowledge of these matters, has pointed out, a considerable number of trials on ships' decks have been carried out using the existing Harrier to prove the concept of shipborne V /STOL operations in the particular rôle we have in mind. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's "bush telegraph ", of which he has spoken in the House, will have led him to know that ships used have included the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal ", the commando carrier "Bulwark ", the cruiser "Blake ", the assault ship "Intrepid ", and the Fleet auxiliaries "Engadine and" Green Rover". These trials went well and showed that V /STOL aircraft could be operated effectively from a suitable ship at sea.
If we decide to go ahead with the maritime Harriers, although they would be capable of flying off a number of types of ship, we would operate them principally from the new "Invincible" class of anti-submarine cruisers and probably "Hennes" as well. The new cruisers, together with "Hermes ", which will be transferred to the anti-submarine rôle next year, are designed as a counter to the massive expansion in the Soviet submarine fleet in recent years. The growth in its nuclear submarine fleet—many of which are missile-armed—is especially worrying. "Hermes" and the cruisers will carry large anti-submarine helicopters like the Sea King, each of which, with its own sonars and weapon systems, provides a very economical anti-submarine capability equivalent to a frigate when on task. The addition of a number of V/STOL aircraft to the complement of our anti-submarine ships would add a new dimension to their capability.
Having said all this, we have to recognise that, inevitably, with a limited defence budget there is not enough money to go around for every project that ideally we would like to undertake. We have just completed the most thorough, detailed and critical examination of our defence needs and resources to be undertaken for very many years. We have eliminated from our programme everything for which we considered an incon-

trovertible case could not be made, to give us a defence system tailor-made to the needs of post-imperial Britain in the next decade.
There is a good operational case for the aircraft. Equally, however, there are also many other weapon systems for which a good operational case could be made out. Some of these, although desirable, were not essential, and in the cold, hard light of Britain's straitened economic circumstances, we have unfortunately not been able to go ahead with them. We have to decide whether the case for the maritime Harrier is so compelling that we are willing, if necessary, to forgo other items of equipment. We have had to assess whether the job could be done in a more effective and perhaps cheaper way. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence re-emphasised very recently, the project has not been abandoned design work is still going ahead, funded by the Government.
Much has been made, both in the House and elsewhere, of the overseas sales and industrial implications of the decision. These are, of course, considerable, and the Government arc well aware of both the balance of payments arguments and the human and technological dimensions for the industry concerned. I can assure the House of that.
I recognise and understand the concern which has been expressed on these fronts. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met trade union representatives from Hawker Siddeley on 3rd March. I have met trade union representatives myself and listened with great interest to their powerful and articulate arguments. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State met trade union representatives, he emphasised the Government's determination to save the extensive sums on defence which we have announced in the defence review and pointed out that this could not be done without some painful consequences on employment. He said, however, that every effort would be made to minimise these, and promised that, in particular, the points they had made about the maritime Harrier would be carefully and sympathetically considered. I welcome this opportunity to reiterate this promise. In this context I look forward to comparing my industrial map with that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's behind Mr.


Speaker's Chair after the debate concludes.
The industrial, employment and sales implications will be borne in mind and taken into account when the Government finally reach a decision. It would, however, be wrong for the decision to depend on these factors alone. The project would be funded basically from the defence budget, and it must be justified on defence grounds as a weapon system.
I again express my appreciation of the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought his concern on this issue once more so clearly to the attention of the House.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Minister assure me that the Government consider that it would be reasonable for foreign buyers to look to the Government to show faith in the aircraft by ordering it first and that this is a factor in the promotion of export sales?

Mr. Judd: We recognise that the Government's endorsement of a military project has sales significance. No one would dream of denying that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.